TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 188
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rao, fell sick due to severe back pain besides hypertension and diabetes and was advised bed rest from 08/09/2016 to 12/10/2016 which has resulted in the delay. (A copy of the medical certificate is also annexed to the petition.). In view of the above, it was prayed that the delay in filing of the appeal, may be condoned as the reasons for the delay were bonafide and are beyond the control of the assessee. 2.1. The Ld.DR, however, opposed the same. 2.2. Having regard to the rival contentions, I am satisfied that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I condone the delay of 30 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing and adjudicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment to the file of the A.O. Thereafter, reassessment was made by the AO in his case on 31/03/2005 by making an addition of Rs. 40 lakhs on a protective basis and the AO of Sri P. Anand Rao had forwarded the information to the AO of the assessee, informing that the substantive assessment has to made in the case of the firm, i.e., the assessee before us. 3.2. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 dated 29/03/2005 was issued, in response to which, the assessee filed a return on 18/04/2005 declaring 'Nil' income. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to furnish nature of transaction entered into by the firm, details of payment of Rs. 40 lakhs, name and address of the party to whom the said amount was paid, copy of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laimed that the partners have brought the money and the same was paid to the selling party. AO did not believe this contention of the assessee and therefore, he brought Rs. 40 lakhs to tax as unexplained investment by the assessee-firm u/s 69 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the same and the assessee further appealed to ITAT, who restored the matter back to the file of AO with a direction to conduct necessary enquiry to find out the genuineness of the claim of the partners that they had invested the amount of Rs. 40 lakhs for purchase of the land by the firm and accordingly decide the issue afresh. 5. In the consequential proceedings, the AO directed the assessee : i. to provide all th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idence, the AO treated the sum of Rs. 40 lakhs as unexplained investment of the firm and accordingly brought it to tax, against which, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the order of AO and the assessee is in second appeal before the ITAT by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1) The order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the status of the appellant as AOP instead of Partnerhsip firm 3) The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 40 lakhs made by the AO by applying the provisions of section 69 of the IT Act. 4) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have seen that the partners confirmed the deposit made into the partnership firm of Rs. 40 lakhs a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to know the genuineness of their introduction of capital in the firm, they could not appear due to various reasons. It is submitted that the assessee has filed confirmation letters and also their individual income tax returns as evidence, but the CIT(A) has however confirmed the order of the AO. 6.1 The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that though the firm was formed in 1996, it had not carried on any business activity and had even got dissolved in the year 2000. He submitted that when the firm has not done any business, the capital amount of Rs. 40 lakhs brought in by the partners for purchase of land, cannot be treated as unexplained income or investment by the firm. He submitted that the partners have filed their returns of incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e business had not commenced or just commenced, the assessee therein it could not have earned any income within a short period after such commencement. Another decision relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee is the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Ernakulam Vs. P.K. Noorjahan, reported in 237 ITR 570, wherein it was held that the intention of the parliament in enacting section 69 was to confer discretion on the ITO in the matter of treating the source of investment which has not been satisfactorily explained. It is also held that the question whether the source of investment should be treated as income or not u/s 69 is to be considered in the light of the facts of each case. 8.1. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme ....