TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 695
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the firm was taken over by M/s Vasant Traders (A sole proprietorship concern with Mr. Dilip Vasantlal Sheth PAN: AEDPS0835A) and the bank account under consideration has already been reflected in the books of accounts of sole proprietorship concern. (b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in simply relying on the remand report of the AO and conveniently ignoring the evidence produced by the appellant including photo copy of firm dissolution deed, letter dtd. 24.06.2008 submitted to VAT Dept. regarding change in status, Tax Audit Report of proprietorship for FY 2010-11, VAT Audit Reports of proprietorship for FY 2009-10 & 2010-11, certificate from bank regarding error in PAN linking at the time of migration to CBS, Certificate from bank mentioning old account number before CBS migration & new account number after CBS migration, bifurcation of sales into cash & credit sales, cash flow statement & reconciliation of debtors with credit sales & cash realization from debtors of M/s Vasant Traders Proprietorship concern. 2. Miscellaneous: (a) The learned Commissioner of Income tax (appeals) has erred in n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is not belonged firm but belongs to individual assessee and they have not conducted any business in the name of firm during the year under consideration, there in no question of deposit of cash of Rs. 1.27 crores. On considering reply of assessee, the Assessing Officer issued summons under section 131 to Shri Dilipbhai Vasantial Seth, who was main partner of the firm requiring to attend office. In response to summon, Dilipbhai Vasantal Seth appeared. His statement was recorded. In the statement, Dilipbhai Vasantal Seth stated that his individual PAN is AEDPS0835A and he has been filing return of income since last 20 years. In assessment year 2011-12, he was doing business of edible oil trading. The firm M/s Vasant Traders (partnership firm) was incorporated in 2004. The bank account No.20102501515 was opened in assessment year 2009-10, which was opened in his own name for his proprietor concern. On asking specific requirement regarding PAN, his individual PAN was disclosed. The assessee confirmed that such PAN was disclosed while opening bank account. The assessee reiterated that partnership firm was dissolved in 2008, however, on asking specific question i.e., the same bank acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 68 of the Act. The assessee also filed detailed written submission before Ld. CIT(A). 4. The assessee also furnished certain additional evidence to substantiate the contention that partnership firm was dissolved and intimation to VAT Department was made. The assessee also filed VAT and audit reports. All such additional evidence was forwarded to the Assessing Officer to give his remand report. The Assessing Officer filed his remand report. as certain part of contents reproduced on pages 4-6 of order of Ld. CIT(A). In the remand report, the Assessing Officer reported that assessee (ex-partner of assessee) was given ample opportunities and personal hearing during assessment proceedings. The assessee failed to produce sufficient materials in support of its claim. The additional evidence furnished at this stage is not to be admitted. In absence of original resolution deed, the closure of business activities and dissolution of partnership firm cannot be accepted and impugned bank statement is not shown in the individual return of assessee for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. Similarly, bank account was also not shown in the audit report. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) on considering th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ks of account. The Ld. AR of the assessee while making his submissions carried us through the details of bank account disclosed in the books of assessee in his audit report to sunsbtatiate that all financial transaction in the bank account is duly considered while preparing profit and loss account of his proprietary concern for AY 2011-12. And as such no addition is liable to be sustained against the assessee-firm. 7. In alternative and without prejudice submissions, the ld AR for the assessee submitted that case of re-opened against the non-existent entity and the assessment passed against non-existent entity and the same is void and ab-initio and assessment order deserve to set-aside. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that even otherwise the assessee has a good case on merit and prayed in primary submissions. 8. On the other hand, the ld Sr-DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that all the contentions of assessee was considered by lower authorities while passing assessment order as well as while confirming the addition by First Appellate Order/ Ld CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival contentions of both the part....