TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 376
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no vouchers/salary register in support of its claim. This assessment order was revised by Ld. CIT-III, Baroda invoking section 263 on the ground that the assessment order passed by the A.O. was an erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Since the Assessing Officer made an adhoc disallowance of Rs. 60,000/- only, when the assessee failed to maintain salary ledger and vouchers thereby directed to make addition of salary paid by cash of Rs. 2,44,000/-. Further the Assessing Officer failed to verify the Partners capital account wherein an addition of Rs. 72,29,762/- during the year. Following the direction, the Assessing Officer after verification of records and calling explanation from the assessee made an addition on account of salary paid by cash of Rs. 1,84,000/-. Regarding Partners Capital account, the assessee could explain Rs. 16,73,997/- and source thereon, thereby the Assessing Officer made an addition on the remaining addition Rs. 55,55,765/- where the source is not explained. 3. Aggrieved against this order, the assessee field an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of Salary expenses, however retained bala....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... On verification of the details filed it is noticed that none of the above three partners had offered the alleged receipt of goodwill in their return of income nor paid any capital gain on this account. Regarding the claim in the case of Shri Ashishbhai Shukla that the capital gain is offered in the hand of his wife is also not acceptable technically. If he has earned any income or gain in his capacity that should have been offered in his return. Even otherwise on verification of the return of Smt. Bina Ashish Shukla no such capital gain is found to be offered for taxation in the return of income. For the remaining partners details, it has been stated that since the other partners are no longer in business with the existing partners and are not having good and cordial relations with them it is not possible to obtain copies of their ITR. From the foregoing discussion it is clear that the appellant had failed to prove the introduction of capital with supporting documents in respect of Rs. 14,26,003/- Thus, the addition to the extent of Rs. 14,26,003/- is upheld and the appellant fails on this issue. 4.3.2 So far as Rs. 41,29,765/-being introduction of fund in current account by Shr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count of Rs. 15,59,765/- is concerned, it is contended that these were amount receivable from sundry debtors of the firm which were collected in cash by Shri Manoj Patel and he made out a Demand Draft in favour of Star India Ltd. for Rs. 2,00,000 and ESPN Software Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 13,59,765/- which were payable by the Firm. The said amount through oversight were recorded in his current account instead of reducing the sundry debtors account by that amount. In support relevant ledgers were filed. This claim, that is mistake by oversight is not tenable as the appellant's accounts are audited by the Chartered Accountant and if the sundry debtors are reduced this should have the bearing in its books of account automatically and the mistake should have been pointed out by the Auditors at the auditing stage itself. Thus, this claim is nothing but an after-thought to cover up the issue. Regarding the alleged payment made by Shri Manoj Patel in favour of Star India Ltd. for Rs. 2,00,000 and ESPN Software Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 13,59,765/- which were payable by the Firm, the appellant had not filed any supporting documents to establish the said transaction. On verification of ledger of sundr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice of notice, None appeared on behalf of the assessee and no request for adjournment or written submission from the assessee side. Therefore we have no option to decide the appeal exparte, with available materials on record. 5.1. It is an admitted case of the assessee, the original assessment order for the Assessment Year 2009-10 was revised u/s. 263 on account of Salary expenses made through cash and addition on account of Partner's Capital account were not explained properly. As against the giving effect order, assessee challenged the same before Ld. CIT(A) who deleted Rs. 1,00,000/- amount of Salary expenses and Rs. 12,04,000/- amount of Partner's Capital account thereby sustained the addition of Rs. 84,000/- on account of Salary expenses and Rs. 43,51,765/- on account of Partner's Capital account. 6. We have observed that the assessee has not filed complete details before the Lower Authorities. We also find from the order of Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee filed written submissions and documents in support of its claim with respect to Salary Expenses. The assessee claimed before ld. CIT(A) that the salary expenses are supported by vouchers and verifiable from the salary registe....