TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 656
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ogether and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The Revenue in ITA No.613/PUN/2003 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) In the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in accepting the cash flow statement prepared by the assessee and other family concerns as not consisting complete record of all undisclosed transactions. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in accepting the cash flow statement in the case of the assessee and in treating the amount of Rs. 7,40,000/- as income received from other sources by the firm in A.Y. 92-93 when both the partners were studying in college in that respective assessment year. 4. First of all th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have failed to appreciate that the unrecorded cash expenditure is outside the scope and purview of Section 40A[3] of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the circumstances, the disallowance of Rs. 10,30,500.00 for A.Y. 1996-97 and of Rs. 80,000.00 for A.Y. 1997-98 made by the learned Assessing Officer and as sustained by the learned C.I.T.[A] in respect of alleged unrecorded purchase price of lands at Katraj may please be deleted. 4. The appellant denies his liability to pay any interest u/s 158 BFA (1) of the I.T. Act 1961. The learned C.I.T.[A] erred in directing the learned Assessing Officer to charge the said interest. The aforesaid direction of the learned C.I.T.[A] being patently illegal and without authority of law the same deserves to be vacat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 9. This is a block assessment proceeding completed u/s 158BC(c) for the block period 01.04.1989 to 08.12.1999. The assessee is aggrieved by disallowance of Rs. 10,30,500/- for assessment year 1996-97 and Rs. 80,000/- for assessment year 1997-98. 10. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee before us pointed out that the said disallowance made is outside the scope and purview of Section 40A(3) of the Act. In this regard, he pointed that the cash payment was made to land owners at Katraj. He also pointed out that during the course of search, document was found in which there was cheque entries and other entries, the total amount was Rs. 55,52,500/- and 20% of the same was disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, we hold that there is no merit in making the aforesaid disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act and we delete the disallowance of Rs. 10,30,500/- for assessment year 1996-97 and Rs. 80,000/- for assessment year 1997-98. The ground of appeal No.3 is allowed. 12. Now coming to the issue raised by ground of appeal No.1 wherein the assessee is aggrieved by the orders of the authorities below in holding that the assessee during the block period had made unexplained investment of Rs. 55,52,500/- for the purchase of land at Kataj. 13. Briefly, in the facts of the case, certain cash payments were made for purchase of Katraj land as per Page 17-18 of the Bundle No.1 totaling to Rs. 55,52,500/- in the statement recorded on 10.02.2000 and 11.02.2000. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no summons were issued by the Assessing Officer and no opportunity of hearing was given to cross-examine and therefore no addition to be made in the hands of the assessee. He also placed on record, the copy of the assessment order of Shri Subash G. Pingale for the block period and it was pointed out that the said addition was made in his hands for different years. It was pointed out that where the partners of the firm were aged about 20 years of age and had no source of income, then no addition on merits can be made in the hands of the partnership firm. 15. Learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand, pointed out that in this case, the onus was on the assessee to produce the persons. The Department had seized the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been admitted to have been made by Shri Subash G. Pingale, there is no question of rejecting the plea of the assessee in this regard. Accordingly, we reverse the orders of the authorities below and hold that once the addition has been made in the hands of Shri Subash G. Pingale, may be, the block assessment was not upheld on technical grounds, but where the partners were minors and were studying and had no source of income, then no addition is warranted in the hands of the partnership firm. In such facts and circumstances, we allow the claim of the assessee vide ground of appeal No.1. 18. Now coming to the grounds of appeal No.4 which is against the charge of interest u/s 158 BFA(1). 19. The brief facts relating to the issue are whet....