INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-19(2)(2), , MUMBAI vs. MORADIYA GEMS LLP, MUMBAI

In the present case, it is submitted that the 1" notice u/s 148 (old) was issued on 24.04.2021, (which is beyond 31.03.2021), by Income tax officer, Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai. The said notice issued after 31.03.2021 is not valid and therefore the assessment proceedings based on the said notice is also not valid and therefore there should not be any reassessment based on the said 1 notice.

It is to be noted that the approval to the said proceedings u/s 151is itself dated 24 April 2021.

The assessee firm, without prejudice, filed the return of income under section 148 on 24 May 2021 and then also filed a letter dated 25 May 2021 Seeking reasons for reopening.

The ITO. 19 (2)(2), Mumbai provided Reasons for Re-opening vide letter dated 1-9-2021. The said reasons are related to information received from DDIT(Inv), Unit 4 (1), Kolkata through Insight Portal about assessee being ultimate beneficiary for alleged black money amounting to Rs. 4,35,00,000/- brough back from M/s ShreehariVinimay Private Limited during financial year 2013-14 relevant for the assessment year 2014-15.

It is submitted that the first word file (titled as Interim Verification Report - M/s StartreeDealcom Private Limited), does not contain any details or information about what is wrongdoing on the part of the assessee firm, IT does not even contain name of assessee firm except on the last page wherein a sum of Rs. 25,00,000 has been simply stated in front of the name of the assessee firm in a table as follows:-

Similarly. It is submitted that second word file also has the same status of that of the first word file which has the name of the assessee firm only in one last line against the amount 3,80,00,000. The information has been in the following format in the table in the word file titled as Investigation Report M/s Innocent Deal Trade Pvt Limited.

Then the said case was shifted to faceless assessment scheme. Notices under section 142 (1) and 143(2) were received and they were replied to.

There were several other observations and objections raised and pointed out to the assessing officer on those two word documents. However there was no consideration to the same.

A show cause notice was issued dated 1st May 2023. It was nothing but Copy paste from the order under section 148 Α.

Detailed reply Was submitted on 8th May 2023.

However, nothing was Considered and addition of Rs 4,35,00,000 was made under section 69A.

It is furthermore submitted that the entire reassessment proceedings are subject to the validity of the said notice as challenged by the assessee. It is submitted that since the reassessment proceedings are time barred, there cannot be any assessment and if any assessment being carried out is invalid ab-initio and hence the entire assessment proceedings are time barred and invalid. Subject to the above legal submissions, the assessee LLP herewith submit the following submissions for your kind consideration.

In other words, there is absolutely no 3rd party evidence which can be easily relied upon but the only material which has been relied are reports made by one officer for some other purposes forwarded to another officer. TheANNEXURE which is the part of approval u/s 151 itself states in para 2.that information has been received from DGIT (INV), unit 4 (1) Kolkata tolnsight Portal 23.In para 2 of the said annexure, it is stated that as per information the assesseeMoradiya Gems LLP being ultimate beneficiaries had brought back their unaccounted money amounting to 3,80,00,000/- from M/s ShreehariVinimayPvt Ltd during the financial year 2013-14 relevant to the assessment year under consideration. After this one occurrence, there is no reference or name taken of M/s Shreehari VinimayPvt Ltd at all during the entire annexure.

The said annexure talks about so many other companies but, M/s Shreehari VinimayPvt Ltd, who being partner in the said LLP has introduced its capital, does not talk about the company which is partner in the said LLP who has introduced capital into the firm at all.

It is stated that information detail talks about information value of 25,00,000/- and verification details talks about result Value of 3,80,00,000/-, mathematical total of whichcomes to 4,15,00,000. However, the approval u/s 151 is for 4,35,00,000/- as income escaping assessment.

It is stated that even the said annexure has given 3 breakups, being (a) 3,80,00,000/-, (b) 30 lakhs, and (c) 25 lakhs.

Para 2.1 of annexure forming part of approval u/s 151, it is stated M/s Innocent Deal Trade Private Limited has current account No. 1129505500098 in the name of with ICICI Kolkata. M/s Shreehari VinimayPvt Ltd has used this account and other shell companies for a layering of transfer of funds to the real beneficiaries. The very vague and generalized statement with no particular details of even names and therefore it cannot be relied upon. There is no other detailed available for submission of the assessee as it is not provided to the assessee LLP. In the absence of any particular details, the same cannot be relied upon as it does not become part of information and details which the Department is relying upon as held by Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India v/s Ashish Agarwal on 4th May 2022.

Para 3 of Annexure forming part of approval u/s 151, it is stated M/s Timelink Sales Private Limited has current account No. 129605500052 in the name of with ICICI Kolkata. M/s Shreehari Vinimay Pvt Ltd has used this account and other shell companies for a layering of transfer of funds amounting to 30 lakhs to the real beneficiaries. The very vague and generalized statement with no particular details of even names and therefore it cannot be relied upon. There is no other detailed available for submission of the assessee as it is not provided to the assessee LLP. In the absence of any particular details, the same cannot be relied upon as it does not become part of information and details which the Department is relying upon as held by Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India v/s Ashish Agarwal on 4th May 2022.

Para 4 of Annexure forming part of approval u/s 151, it is stated M/s Startree Dealcom Private Limited has current account No. 1295055001127 in the name of with ICICI Kolkata. M/s Shreehari VinimaPvt Ltd has used this account and other shell companies for a layering of transfer of funds amounting to 25 lakhs to the real beneficiaries. The very vague and generalized statement with no particular details of even names and therefore it cannot be relied upon. There is no other detailed available for submission of the assessee as it is not provided to the assessee LLP. In the absence of any particular details, the same cannot be relied upon as it does not become part of information and details which the Department is relying upon as held by Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India v/s Ashish Agarwal on 4th May 2022.

It is submitted that even though the said Annexure is running into 7 pages. there is no creditable information other than a reference of information received from DGIT (INV), unit 1 (1), Kolkata. It is merely an information and nothing more than that. The said information in the nature of mole has been turned into a monster by the assessing officer and has presumed income escapement of 4,35,00,000/-.

The assessee's application on 10th June 2022 to the income tax officer yielded no further information being provided even though the said Supreme Court order of AshishAgarwal dated 4th May 2022 specifically held so in para 8 and para 10 of its order. The assessing officer just conveniently choose to ignore the said part of the Supreme Court order and followed only that part which was beneficial to Department reopen the said assessment proceedings and cleverly and clearly ignored the directions given by Supreme Court in its said order in the interest of natural justice to provide All Information And Material to the assessee within 30 days of the said order.

In other words, the rights of the assessee had taken away by the assessee as given in the said order of Supreme Court and at the same time the assessing officer is trying to follow the order of the Supreme Courtperfection against the assessee for Leving unjustified income tax, which is not correct the principles of natural justice.

This is again the violation of another Supreme Court order in the case of YashpalDhir V/s R. N. Gosain (Civil Appeal No. 4325 of 1992) (Annex-B) wherein court stated that "Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the Doctrine of Election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that "a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid any thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage. "

In the circumstances your kind attention is drawn to the recent ITAT Mumbai bench decision in in the case of MamtaLalit Jain (Annex-C). In this case too, the re-assessment was initiated on the basis of the report of Deputy Director of Income Tax (investigation) and nothing else. The said decision reads as... "We further find that the Page 5 of 30 information received from investigation wing by the leaned assessing officer wide letter dated 6 th March 2019 was placed on record by the learned AR before us.

It is submitted that all is our clear-cut contempt of court, that too Supreme Court and the regulatory authority which is again against Article 141 of the Indian Constitution 1949. (Annex-E)

The assessing officer vide letter dated 28th June 2022, (DIN: ITBA/COM/F/17/2022- 23/1043644473(1)), gave copies of (a) a document titled Interim Verification Report, M/s StartreeDealcom Private Limited (4 pages) and (b) Investigation Report M/S Innocent Deal Trade Private Limited (2 pages).

Document titled Interim Verification Report, apart from having some unrelated information which is not concerning assessee LLP and/or any way related to partner who has introduced capital into the assessee LLP which is just being Incorporated. The said report itself that with the 1" client whichis, "a credible information was received by this office..... And whatever has been stated in the next 4 paragraphs are nothing but unrelated stuff to the assessee LLP. It describes what M/s Star Tree Dealcom Private Limited and some other 13 accounts has done without even taking the name of ShreehariVinimay Private Limited.

It also states that the funds are transferred through RTGS, and what is wrong in account being credited through RTGS is not known as it is a permitted instrument for faster and effective fund management introduced by reserve bank of India. It also says that there are many companies with which M/s Star Tree Dealcom Private Limited has dealt with or strike off or database company. What is meant by database company is a matter of imagination as the same word has never been heard before.

It is stated that strike off only means that some particular forms an annual returns prescribed by registrar of companies are not filed any time and there are provisions prevailing in the companies act 1956 and companies act 2013 to restore such companies under specific provisions. Just by stating that these companies are strike of does not mean anything incriminating, generally to the company related and specially to the assessee LLP in particular.

It is also stated that this report is made with some different purpose and has been shared with assessing officer stating further action to be taken after proper verification. It is also stated that these companies have no fixed assets or business or claimed any expense by way of salary, office expenses etc. It is also stated that 360° profiling and financial analyses of these shell entities shall be shared with assessing officer along with the findings of enquiry that means that this is just an information and further enquiry, and analysis needs to be done. In other words, it cannot be blindly relied upon as what has been done by the assessing officer. It is submitted that 360° profiling and financial analysis as a shared with the assessing officer hasnot been shared with the assessee LLP which is again a violation of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Union of India v/s Ashish Agrawal. It is hereby requested to provide us the copy of the same for filing our submission there on and also provide us an opportunity to cross examine the persons concerned to let the assessee LLP exercise the right best of upon by another Supreme Court decision in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (Civil Appeal Number 4228 of 2006). (Annex-F)

The said document named interim verification report also stated that the number of companies were registered at common address and also used the common email. However, on actual verification from the MCA website exactly opposite is found, in other words all the companies are having different address and different email IDs.

It is stated in the said interim investigation report that a fund trail was prepared and placed on file to the tune of 63 crores approximately. The said report further states that such ultimate beneficiaries were identified on the basis of regular business activities, turnover, fixed assets, regular ITR filing status etc. who brought back their unaccounted money. This again is a futile and use less statement as 63 crores out of 6005 crores as stated on page 1 of the said report is just about 1% of the total volume talked about. In other words, this is like exception and not the rule as 1% sample size is too small to conclude or prove anything.

It is stated that there are 3 tables given on page 3 and 4 of the said report. Serial numbers in the said table stated as 2, 7, 1, 3, 6, 5, and 4. The column like Beneficiary, Pan, Jurisdiction are all striked out and only amount are visible. The total is stated to be 6,43,16,871/-. Same is on the next table on the page, which again has serial number stated as 1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 7, 9, 10. In this table too, Beneficiary, Pan, Jurisdiction are all striked out and only amount are visible. The total is always 1,38,50,000. The 3rd table shows the name of assessee from at serial No. 17 and Rs. 25 lakhs is stated in the amount column. It may be a possibility that someone is on 25 lakhs and that it has invested the same amount somewhere as this does not claim any other information.

Document title Investigation Report - it is not known that this investigation was done in whose case and what was the outcome of the said investigation.

It is also not known that what was the conclusion of the said investigation.

It is also not known that whose confession/statement (if at all any) are being misinterpreted in the present case as there are none provided to the assessee LLP for their submission and opportunity for cross verification.

The said investigation report has stated ITD analysis of the company is on the following few unrelated parameters which has been stated as fixed assets, sale, rent paid, profit before tax. Stated that this is the absolutely wrong way of doing financial analysis as it is not considered share capital, net worth of the company, investments of the company etc. as just by comparing fixed assets sales and it is not possible to know the genuineness of the transaction is piecemeal comparison of small and relevant factors are not sufficient enough to conclude anything drastic like this, specially considering any transaction as sham or bogus transaction. It needs to be understood in the proper parlance and then analyze to see whether the said transaction is passing the test of time before passing any character and judgement or doing any character assassination, which please note. It is to the temptation which cannot be resisted to state that M/s Tata Motors Ltd had net loss of few decade ago and was denied a working capital facilities from IDBI and any judgement based on the said parameters leaders to a wrong conclusion.

There is a table on page 2 of the said investigation report which has justlisted name of the assessee with PAN and amount of the piece 3,80,00,000. There is no other information, basis, meaningful data justify on conclude any wrongdoing of search you, of the piece 3,80,00,000. It is also submitted that there is no evidence, or even an iota of evidence state that there is any exchange of cash to this effect as it being the most common way of accommodation entries of any nature.

It is submitted in respect of the records that these are just the report madeby one officer and to another for further verification. What the assessing officer has done or what officers at NFAC have done is not known to us. 53.It is also stated that there is complete absence of any confessional statement anyone or it has not been provided for submission by the assessee LLP. It is humbly stated at the cost of repetition that since the same are not provided to the assessee, simply there cannot be any alliance put on the said.

The stated that of an assessing officer can make any addition of any amount based on just internal note made by a random assessing officer in someother case without any enquiries, verification, inclusive remarks with 3d party evidence and/or any incriminating evidence and statements on oath recorded.

It is submitted that there are no 3rd party statement provided to the assessee LLP and hence it can be easily and conclusively stated that there are no statements on which the Department as relying on.

There are no details for any exchange of cash between the parties as is the most vital piece of information in such transactions, so to say.

It is again submitted that if these two reports are the only piece of evidence or material on which the Department is relying on to make a such huge addition than, it is submitted, that this addition simply cannot be made as this is just a piece of paper and nothing else:

It is very surprising that assessing officer has simply overlooked the fact that this amount is capital introduction by the partner and as per Supreme Court decision in the case of (2018) 96 taxman.com 469 (SC) Supreme Court of India in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V/s VaishnodeviRefoils&Solvex,. (Annex-G) the firm cannot be penalized for any illegal source or unproven credit as capital introduction by any of the partners. In Other words, in the event of assessing officer not satisfied with any credit or capital introduction by a partner in the firm, then the action should be taken at the end of the partner and not in the hands of firm.

Your kind attention is drawn to the decision reported in (2018) 96 taxman.com 469 (SC) Supreme Court of India in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V/s VaishnodeviRefoils&Solvex, given on July 9, 2018 by Learned judges MrRohintonFaliNariman and Ms. InduMalhotra. This decision was given in response to the special leave petition filed by the revenue against the Gujarat High Court order in the same case reported in (2018) 89 Taxmann.com 80 (Guj) (Annex-H).

The above decision has clearly stated that if assessing officer was not convinced about creditworthiness of the partner who had made capital contribution, then enquiries had to be made at end of the partner and not against firm and hence SLP was dismissed. In the above- mentioned case, it is further stated that where assessing officer made addition to the assessee firms' income u/s 68 in respect of capital introduced by one partner of form, in view of the fact that amount received by assessee firm had been duly reflected in books of account maintained by concerned partner and he had also confirmed such contribution, impugned addition was to be deleted.

In para 8 of the above referred Gujarat High Court order, the High Court observed that. "in the facts of the present case, when the assessee has furnished the details with regard to the source of the capital introduced in the firm and the concerned partner has confirmed such contribution, the assessee had duly discharged the onus cast upon it. Thereafter, if the assessing officer was not convinced about the creditworthiness of the partner who had made the capital contribution, the enquiry had to be made at the end of the partner and not against the firm. The controversy involved in the present case therefore stands squarely covered by the decision ofthis court in the case of CIT v/s Pankaj Dyestuff Industry (In Income Tax Reference No. 241 of 1993)." (Annex-1)

In para 9 of the above referred Gujarat High Court order, the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Department against the tribunals order giving full relief to the assessee.

From the reading of para 6 of the said order, it is understood that CIT appeal, ITAT as well as High Court all have ruled in favour of the assessee and had confirmed that in case the assessing officer had any doubts about the creditworthiness of the partner, he could have referred the matter to the assessing officer of the partner for making necessary verifications at his and. But no adverse inference could be drawn in the case of assessee being the partnership firm for the capital introduced by the firm when the partner had confirmed the capital contribution, and the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed by the Department against the order of the High Court. So, in other words, this is the law of the land is decided by the Supreme Court that there cannot be any addition in the hands of the partnership firm on account of any doubt about creditworthiness of the said partner in case of any capital contribution by the partner when partner confirms that he has made such capital contribution.

The assessee, vide their submissions dated 4th July 2022 again challenge the validity of the said reassessment proceedings requested for the details forming part of materials and information relied upon by the assessing officer. However, the assessing officer passed the order u/s 148A (d) making this a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 and issue of the said notice on 25th July 2022.

At the outset, it is stated that the said order u/s 148 A (d) order is passed without application of mind and extracting several bits and pieces from reasons of reopening issued at the time of old notice and annexure formingpart of approval u/s 151. From several letters and notices apart from assessee's submission on various dates.

In reply to the said notice u/s 148, the assessee LLP filed the return of income on 10/08/2022.

In response to various notices issued from time to time the assessee LLP has made various submissions, the summary of which is as under:

It seems that the assessing officer at NFAC has not considered the submissions made by the assessee LLP as is evident from the show cause notice dated 1ª May 2023 received.

It is stated that during the year assessee from Avenue received 4,50,00,000/- from its partner M/s Shreehari Vinimay Private Limited. It is worthwhile noting that the firm is formed on 12 March 2013 itself. It's a new firm recently constituted.

The confirmation duly signed by both the parties, i.e. assessee firm and its partner is duly filed herewith. Kindly also filed enclosed herewith income tax return filed acknowledgement, balance sheet of the company, relevant bank statement highlighting the transaction of capital introduction into the assessee firm. (Annex-J, K, L & M)

It is stated that from para 2.1 on 2nd page of the show cause notice till last para of the 4th page of the said show cause notice, everything is copy paste from order u/s 148A(d) dated 25th July 2022. Since all the points mentioned therein are already dealt with in the submission elsewhere and before as well, it is not repeated in detailed here once again.

It is stated that what has been stated in these paragraphs, are not relevant or directly related to the assessee firm and/or its partner who has contributed initial capital in the firm.

There is no reference of introduction of capital by partner or even its name in the entire show cause notice which please note

Last paragraph on page 4 of the said show cause notice reads as "Subsequently in pursuance to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 4 May 2022 In the case of Union of India V/s AshishAgrawal (2022 SCC Online SC 543), the assessee wide DIN & letter number. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022- 23/1043258852 (1) dated 27 may 2022 allowing the assessee 2 weeks time to submit its reply was provided with copy of reasons recorded prior to the issue of the notice.... In respect of this, it is stated that the said letter was never issued to the assessee firm as what was issued to the assessee firm was having DIN & letter number: (ITBA/COM/F/17/202- 23/1043208973 (1)). Now the assessing officer at NFAC has made a mistake and mixed the facts of other case with that of the assessee firm. This is not the only instance of such blunder at 1 of many as stated in the later part of the submission.

Last para in.2.1, which happens to be on page 5 of the show cause notice reads as ".... As it is already stated that the other legal consequences on the criminal conspiracy, regarding the transfer of the property in question cannot be an hindrance to the assessment proceedings, the assessee should have complied property. The application of section 50 C of the act is justified as there is a difference of Rs. 9.29.66,000/- between sales consideration and stamp duty valuation as evident from the relevant documents. Being one fourth owner of the said property, the assessee is liable to Rs. 2,32.41.500/- as deemed income u/s 50 C of the income tax act 1961. In the absence of any relevant submission regarding LTCG the was emerged from the sale consideration, 1/4 of the total sales consideration of 5.20.10,000/- should be treated as LTCG as applicable as per the provisions of the act.

There are 2.4 on page 6 as stated that..... Therefore, based on the about discussion, you have to explain, why 4,35,00,000/- for the assessment year 2014-15 should not be treated as assessed income from other fictitious sources u/s 69 of the income tax act 1961....?" There, table showing the same figures in a tabular form, which states "variation in respect to addition as per para 2.4 (i) amounting to 4,35,00,000/- "AND "variation in respect to addition as per para 2.4 (ii) amounting to 4,35,00,000/-". It is stated that there are no para 2.4 (i) and para 2.4(ii) in the show cause notice, which is in another example of carelessness and oversight on the part of NFAC.

As far as the firm is concerned, it has received the capital introduction by its partner who is known to the firm since its inception and therefore under any circumstances, it cannot be said that from has any doubts about its partners source of capital introduction.

It is stated that the assessee company specifically denied having done any business with Calcutta-based entry operator ShriArun, Khemka.

It is stated that the Department has not given any 3rd party information, statement, confirmation, or confession of any nature whatsoever other than their own interim verification report, investigation report, fund trail etc. These are all prepared by income tax department and no 3rd party statements along with any direct or indirect evidence is provided to the assessee for crores verification purposes.

It is stated that the assessee firm specifically denies any wrongdoings and seek the opportunity to cross verify and cross examine all persons in this connection. It is stated that it'll be absolutely illegal on the part of the Department to provide any more such illicit evidence to prove its point.

It is submitted that just because the companies name is struck off from MCA data, it does not mean the company ceased to exist. It does happen many times that some company failed to file required annual returns on MCA website on various grounds. That does not mean the company has also ceased to exist and it becomes shell company or bogus company. One example of an auditor refused to sign the balance sheet of the company and not giving N.O.C to another auditor to do the same can also result into non-of balance sheet or annual returns on MCA site resulting to striking off the companies name.

It's a common practice to save money on premises rent or capital value and to register several companies at one common address. This has been the practice of Tata group since inception and just by having number of offices at one common address does not make the company bogus company.

In the interest of natural justice, you are requested to follow the Supreme Courtin the case of Andaman Timber industries (Civil Appeal Number 4228 of 2006) and High Court of Bombay in the case of R.W. Promotions Private Limited (ITA No. 1489 of 2013) (Annex-F & N) and provide us the opportunity to cross examination.

Section 69 A of Income Tax Act, 1961 reads as "Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewelleryor other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year.

From the above reading, it is evident that provisions of section 69A can be made applicable when the (i) assessee is found owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or any valuable article and (ii) such asset is not recorded in the books of accounts (iii) of which the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition (iv) or the explanation offered by him, is not satisfactory and in the opinion of the assessing officer.

In simple words, it is stated that the assessee is not found owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or any valuable article which are not recorded in the books of accounts. In other words, in the absence of any asset found namely money, bullion, jewellery, any valuable article found, there should not be applicability of section 69A.

In simple words, since there is no asset found, the provisions about explanation offered or satisfactory explanation offered is not operative at all.

It is stated that in the present case, therefore provisions of section 69 A cannot be made applicable. So kindly delete the addition made to the total income and oblige.

We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgements cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who noted that from the audited balance-sheet of the partner in his books of accounts, the investments in the partnership firm were duly reflected. In so far as the source of capital contribution is concerned, the partner had his own capital, secured and unsecured loans besides liability. The Assessing Officer had not given any adverse finding about the said sources and their genuineness. According to the Commissioner (Appeals), in case the Assessing Officer had any doubts about the credit worthiness of the partner, he could have referred the matter to the Assessing Officer of the partner for making necessary verifications at his end. But no adverse inference could be drawn in the case of the assessee being the partnership firm, for the capital introduced by the partner when the partner had confirmed the capital contribution.

In revenue's appeal, the Tribunal placed reliance upon the decision of this High Court in Pankaj Dyestuff Industries rendered in Income Tax Reference No.241 of 1993 for the proposition that no addition can be made with regard to the partner's capital introduction in the hands of the partnership firm and dismissed the appeal.

In the above view of the matter, when the Tribunal has merely applied the decision of the jurisdictional High Court to the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity so as to give rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law warranting interference. The appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, summarily dismissed."

Even recently, the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmadabad in the case of ITO Vs Samvatt Properties LLP, while lying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court In the case of Vaishno Devi (supra) has held that in case the creditworthiness of the partners is not proved then in that eventuality the additions if any had to be made in the case of partners and not in the case of the firm. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced here in below:

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed."

The facts discussed and narrated by us above are undisputed as during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings, the assessee had filed and relied upon the copy of partnership dead, copy of bank account of SVPL with ICICI bank and Indian overseas bank for the relevant period, which reflects payments in favour of assessee for an amount of Rs. 4,35,00,000/- is appearing in debit side of this bank account. The said amount is also appearing in credit side of the bank account of the assessee maintained with HDFC. Copies of both bank account of SVPL with ICICI bank and Indian overseas bank and also the copies of bank account of the assessee are already on the record. Therefore, considering the overall facts and legal proposition as discussed by us and also considering the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court, we found that no additions could have been made under the above circumstances in the case of assessee. Therefore the same was rightly deleted by Ld. CIT(A).

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed.