TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see by paying huge cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/- alleged to have violated the provision of Section 40A(3) of the Act. The details whereof has been reproduced in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the following manner: Sr. No. Voucher No. Date Name of the Party Amount paid in excess of Rs. 20,000/- Remarks 1 110 30-04-2016 Animeshkumar D. Jha 25,000.00 Withdrawal by Partner 2 470 30-06-2016 Animeshkumar D. Jha 25,000.00 Withdrawal by Partner 3 827 30-08-2016 Animeshkumar D. Jha 25,000.00 Withdrawal by Partner 4 839 31-08-2016 Rajesh N. Talaviya 50,000.00 Withdrawal by Partner 5 922 15-09-2016 Rashmiben A. Jha 50,000.00 Withdrawal by Partner 6 1247 31-10-2016 Animesh Kumar D. Jha 25,000.00 Withdrawal by Partner 7 1248 31-10-2016 Rajesh N. Talaviya 50,000.00 Withdrawal by Partner 8 1249 31-10-2016 Rashmiben A. Jha 50,000.00 Withdrawal by Partner 9 1250 31-10-2016 Varshaben R. Talaviya 50,000.00 Withdrawal by Partner 10 1500 31-12-2016 Animesh Kumar D. Jha 25,000.00 Withdrawal by Partner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the firm. There is no common seal of a partnership firm. The status of the partners qua the firm has been summed up by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. R.M. Chidambaram Pillai & Ors. (1977) 1 SCC 431 wherein the Hon'ble Court was of the view that a firm is not legal person even though it has some attributes of the personality. According to the Hon'ble Court, partnership is a relation between certain persons who agree to share the profits of the business. In Income Tax Law, a firm is a unit of assessment by special provisions but is not a full person. Thus, the partners cannot be considered as separate and Distinct from their firm and any money provided by them to the firm cannot be taken as an independent transaction of loan under the purview of Section 269SS of the Act. Despite the position as laid down by the Supreme Court, the legal status of a partnership firm vis-à- vis its partners have always been under debate and so is the applicability of Section 269SS or 269T to money advanced by partner to his firm relying upon this decision, the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Muthoot Financiers ITA No. 336, 338, 341 and 345 of 2002 dated 03.02.2015 has h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the foregoing paragraph, we find substance in such arguments made by the Ld. DR. Furthermore, it is a settled principle that the capital cannot be attributable as expenses and in the instant case part of the old capital had been withdrawn by the partners of the firm, which is not liable to be subjected to the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. Moreso, when the entire materials were placed before the Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceeding and only upon verification of the same, the return of income was accepted, which is also reflecting from the order passed by the Ld. AO mentioned in paragraph 2 therein, in our considered opinion, assessment cannot be reopened by exercising power conferred under Section 263 of the Act by the Ld. PCIT in the manner it has been done. 10. We find that the issue raised by the Ld. PCIT was already adjudicated upon due application of mind by the Ld. AO in the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the act and return was accepted. The copy of the partners' capital account, payment vouchers made to the partners, the ledger of cash book alongwith narration for the period 01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017 were duly placed before the Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v.in ENT In your case, the Assessment for A.Y. 2017-18, was finalized u/s.143 (3) of the Act on 10-12-2019 determining total Income at Rs.31,93,020/-. 2. On perusal of record, it is seen that during the previous year 2016-17 relevant to A.Y 2017-18, there are many instances when your firm had made payments in cash exceeds Rs. 20,000/- in a single voucher aggregating to Rs. 7,60,000/- as under: Sr Voucher No. Date No. 1 110. 30-04-2016 Amount paid in excess of Rs 20,000/ 25.000 Note: If digitally signed, the date of digital signature may be taken as date of document. AAYAKAR BHAWAN, RACE COURSE RING ROAD, RAJKOT, Gujarat, 300001 Email: [email protected], The website address of the e-filing portat has been changed from www.incometaxindiacling.gov.in to www.incometax.gov.in -Document identification No. W. 3 Document 2 AADFDSSSSE-DHARATI ENGINEERS A.Y. 2017-18 ITBA/REVIFIREV1/2021 22/1034320935(1) 2 470 30-06-2016 25000 3 827 30-08-2016 25000 4 839 31-08-2016 50000 55 922 15-09-2016 50000 6 1247 31-10-2016 25000 7 1248 31-10-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AY. AADFD8555E 2017-18 ITBA/REV/F/REV1/2021- 22/1037715053(1) Daled: 11/12/2021 NOTICE FOR THE HEARING M/s/Mr/Ms Subject: Notice for Hearing in respect of Revision proceedings u/s 263 of the THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961-Assessment Year 2017-18. In this regard, a hearing in the matter is fixed on 22/12/2021 at 11:00 AM. You are requested to attend in person or through an authorized representative to submit your representation, if any alongwith supporting documents/information in support of the issues involved (as mentioned below). If you wish that the Revision proceeding be concluded on the basis of your written submissions/representations filed in this office, on or before the said due date, then your personal attendance is not required. You allso have the option to file your submission from the e-filling portal using the link: incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in महोदय/महोदया, NCOME TAX DEPARTMENT A notice was issued to you on 20-07-2021 by the erstwhile Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot, the brief of the same is as under: "In your case, the Assessment for A.Y. 2017-18, was finalized u/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: ITBA/REV/F/REV1/2021-22/1034329935(1) With reference to the aforesaid subject, we would like to furnish the details as below; 2. With respect to your concern and observation regarding our firm had made payments in cash exceeds Rs.20,000/- in a single voucher aggregating to Rs.7,60,000/- during the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Details of the Firm had made Cash Payments exceeds Rs.20,000/- in a single voucher are as under: Sr. No. Voucher No. Date Name of the Party Amount paid in excess of Rs.20,000/- Remarks 1 110 30-04-2016 Animeshkumar D. Jha 25,000.00 Withdrawal by Partner 2 470 30-06-2016 Animeshkumar D. Jha 25,000.00 Withdrawal by Partner 3 827 30-08-2016 Animeshkumar D. Jha 25,000.00 Withdrawal by Partner 4 839 31-08-2016 Rajesh N. Talaviya 50,000.00 Withdrawal by Partner 5 922 15-09-2016 Rashmiben A. Jha 50,000.00 Withdrawal by Partner For, Dhare Engineers Document 8 6 1247 31-10-2016 Animeshkumar D. Jha 25,000.00 Withdrawal by Partner 7 1248 31-10-2016 Rajesh N. Talaviya 50,000.00 Withdrawal by Partn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Receipts By Cash Etc. Modes - The restrictions levied in Section 269ST are on the basis of (i) per day per person (ii) per transaction; and (iii) all transactions per event / occasion. All these basis /limits are applicable simultaneously. Per Day Per Person Limit: It is self explanatory i.e., wherever Section 269ST is applicable, a partner of the firm can take only up to "less than Rs. 2 lakhs" from the firm in cash etc. modes in a single day. The similar situation will be applicable on receipt by firm from its partner. Per Transaction Limit: It is also self explanatory i.e., wherever Section 269ST is applicable a firm can receive amount of only "up to less than Rs. 2 lakhs" from its partner in cash etc. mode in a single transaction (complying with other limits). The similar analogy will also be applicable on receipt by partner from the firm. All Transactions Per Event / Occasion Limit: There is no definition of words "event"/"occasion" used in clause (c) of Section 269ST. There is also no clarification from CBDT on this issue. There are also no judicial decisions on this matter. Therefore, in absence of the same the view is p....