TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1565
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....For the Respondent : Shri Aalok Mittal, Advocate ORDER Rajive Bhalla , J. (Oral): The revenue challenges, order dated 18.1.1999 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar and order dated 21.9.1992 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalandhar, by alleging that following questions of law arise for adjudication:- "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see holding that such addition, if any, need be made in the respective hands of the partners and not in the case of the assessee?" Counsel for the revenue submits that Shri K.L. Taneja and Shri Naveen Taneja, partners of the firm received money from abroad and it was immediately transferred to the account of the firm. The Assessing Officer, therefore, rightly treated the aforesaid amount as incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the parties, perused the impugned orders and the substantial question of law. Admittedly, partners of the assessee firm received certain amounts which were transferred to the account of the assessee firm. The Assessing Officer, treated the transactions as received from unexplained and undisclosed sources and as such added them to the total income of the assessee-firm. The Commissioner of Incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....explained no addition was called for in the hands of the firm. The reliance is placed on the following decisions to support his contention:- i) Narayandas Kedarnath vs. CIT, (1952)22 ITR 15 (Bombay) ii) Sugar Chand Chandanmal vs. ITO, (1977) TaxLR 1046 (Cal) iii) Indo-European Machinery Company vs. CIT (1955)28 ITR 433 (Punjab) iv) Balbhadra Chand Munna Lal vs. CIT (1959)331 ITR 781 4.3 ....