TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n affidavit and verification sworn by Shri Ketul Jayeshkumar Joshi, partner of the assessee firm. In the said application, the assessee has stated that the delay occurred due to bona fide and reasonable cause beyond its control. It was submitted that the legal counsel who was previously entrusted with the task of handling the income-tax proceedings failed to file the appeal within the prescribed time. The assessee, upon becoming aware of this lapse, promptly appointed a new authorized representative, CA Prashant Srivastava, who thereafter prepared and filed the appeal without any further delay. It is further submitted that the delay of 18 days was neither deliberate nor with any malafide intent, but was purely on account of circumstances attributable to lapse on part of the earlier counsel. 2.2 We have considered the contents of the condonation petition and the supporting material. The delay of 18 days is not inordinate. The explanation offered by the assessee is reasonable, plausible and duly supported by affidavit. The learned Departmental Representative has also not objected to the condonation of delay. 2.3 In view of the totality of the circumstances and in the interest o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3.3 The AO held that although the assessee contended that the immovable property was purchased out of capital contributed by the partners, the explanation furnished was not substantiated with cogent and credible evidence. The AO issued notices under section 133(6) to ten of the eleven partners seeking details of their capital contributions, including their ITRs, bank statements, and explanation of specific credits. In several cases, it was observed that the partners had received funds into their bank accounts via cash deposits or third-party transfers immediately before transferring the money to the firm. The partners' returned incomes were found to be disproportionately low vis-à-vis the capital introduced. The AO held that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, the investment of Rs. 2,91,23,300/- remained unexplained under section 69, and the capital of Rs. 1,37,40,714/- introduced by the remaining ten partners (except Rs. 4,00,000/- explained by Dr. Asit J. Sanghavi) was deemed unexplained under section 68. Both additions were taxed under section 115BBE and penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) were separately initiated. 3.4 The assessee preferred appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g part of the paper book at page no. 148, which was also reproduced by the CIT(A) at page 8 of the appellate order. It was submitted that a total capital of Rs. 2,05,25,000/- was introduced by the partners in F.Y. 2015-16 and Rs. 1,41,40,714/- in F.Y. 2016-17. Against this, the firm had made land purchase payments of Rs. 2,02,00,000/- in F.Y. 2015-16 and Rs. 89,23,300/- in F.Y. 2016-17 respectively, which were entirely sourced from the capital introduced. The learned AR further submitted that to establish the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the partners, the assessee had filed copies of their income tax returns, bank account statements and supporting documents before the CIT(A), but the same were not duly considered or appreciated by the first appellate authority while confirming the additions. The learned AR then took us through the relevant evidences placed on record in the paper book from pages 149 to 263 in support of his contention that the source of investment stood fully explained. 5.1 The learned Authorised Representative (AR) further contended that the addition made under section 69A on account of unexplained investment is wholly unjustified, inasmuch as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, including issuance of notices under section 133(6) to the partners, but satisfactory responses were not received. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the orders of the lower authorities, and examined the material placed on record including the paper book filed by the assessee. The primary issues arising for our adjudication are (i) whether the addition of Rs. 2,91,23,300/- made under section 69A on account of alleged unexplained investment in land is sustainable in the hands of the firm, and (ii) whether the addition of Rs. 1,37,40,714/- made under section 68 in respect of capital introduced by the partners is legally tenable. 6.1 At the outset, we note that the assessee firm was constituted during the financial year 2015-16 and had entered into a registered purchase agreement for immovable property at Paldi, Ahmedabad, with the total purchase consideration amounting to Rs. 2.75 crore. Additionally, stamp duty and registration charges aggregating to Rs. 16,73,300/- were incurred, resulting in total investment of Rs. 2,91,23,300/-. From the record, it is evident that out of the total purchase price Rs. 2,02,00,000/- was paid in F.Y. 2015-16 and R....