2024 (9) TMI 1518

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Rs. 2,92,82,500/- on account of unexplained investment despite the fact that the assessee could not bring anything on record to establish that this unexplained investment was from known source of income. 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by accepting the same reasons of unexplained investment which were rejected by the Assessing Officer in absence of documentary evidence. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by observing that this unexplained investment was out of preceding and current year withdrawals without any reconciliation through accounts. 4. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not providing an opportunity to AO under Rule 46A to give comments/counter the issues raised. 5. Ld. CIT(A) has erred i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ount Jaipur 26/07/17 5,90,26,000 Amarjeet Singh 1,95,19,708       Hardeep Singh 97,62,791       Tarun Malhotra 1,46,41,250       Rakesh Dham 1,46,41,250       Amarjeet Singh 5,30,000 Goa 22/09/17 4,65,54,230 Sunil Dhara 50,00,000       Shri Balaji TradeLinks 4,25,00,000 6. The Assessing Officer accepted the funds from the partners Amarjeet Singh and Hardeep Singh, Sunil Dhara and Shri Balaji Tradelinks. The AO however, disbelieved the funds received from Tarun Malhotra and Rakesh Dham. Accordingly, an amount of Rs 2,92,82,500/- i.e., the payment of Rs. 1,46,41,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r dated 24.04.2020 [Hon'ble Allahabad High Court] ii) CIT Vs. Pankaj Dyestuff Industries dated 06.07.2005 [Hon'ble Gujarat High Court ] iii) CIT Vs. Taj Borewell [2007] 291 ITR 232 [Madras High Court] iv) CIT Vs. M. Venkateswara Road & Others [Hon'ble Telangana & AP High Court] v) CIT Vs. Metal and Metals of India [2007] 208 CTR 457 [Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court] vi) CIT Vs. Kewal Krishna & Partners [2009] 18 DTR 121 [Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court] vii) CIT Vs. Metachem Industries 245 ITR160 [Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court] viii) M/s Ambika Enterprises ITA No. 31/DEL/2020 order dated 21.07.2023 10. Per contra, the ld DR vehemently argued that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lhotra had net worth to seek both secured and unsecured loans and substantial surplus funds and sources at his disposal to advance loan to the assessee. The Assessing Officer has highlighted certain discrepancies in the balance sheet of Sh. Tarun Malhotra. However, the Assessing Officer in this matter should have distinguished between the personal affairs and balance sheet of the assessee LLP. In respect of any discrepancy, the Assessing Officer was free to reject the books of account and recast the results thereon. However, the same have not been rejected by the Assessing Officer. Further, the Assessing Officer has not controverted the cash credits in the accounts of Sh.Tarun Malhotra with any cogent inquiries or reasonin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ect of loans advanced by it to the appellant LLP." 12. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to agree with the decision of the CIT(A). We also find force in the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee that where the assessee furnishes a valid explanation for the investment made, the onus cast upon it is discharged. We are of the considered opinion that the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of M/s Ambika Enterprises ITA No. 31/DEL/2020 order dated 21.07.2023, relied upon by the assessee, squarely applies. It was held, on the issue of addition of share capital u/s 68 of the Act, that where there is no ambiguity about the identity of the partner and capital introduced from him, in such circumstance....