PAZHAYANGADI G GOLD,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee firm had sufficiently explained the source of the capital contributions, as it was received from partners in the form of inherited gold ornaments and foreign savings. Consequently, no addition could be made in the hands of the firm under Section 68. However, the department retains the freedom to take action against the individual partners regarding the source of their contributions if further investigation is deemed necessary.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the gold jewellery business, filed a nil return for AY 2018-19. During scrutiny, the AO questioned capital contributions of Rs. 3,31,24,523/- made by partners, which the assessee explained as inherited gold ornaments and foreign savings. Dissatisfied, the AO added the entire amount under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, an addition upheld by the Ld. CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether capital contributions received by a partnership firm from its partners, explained as inherited gold ornaments and foreign savings, can be added to the firm's income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH:COCHIN
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
Date of Hearing : 29.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 O R D E R PERPRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 21.3.2025 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074830671(1) and relates to the AY 2018-19.
Brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of authorities below are that the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in purchase and manufacturing of gold jewellery. The assessee has commenced its business during the year under consideration itself. It has filed its return of income declaring nil income on 30.1.2019. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) and thereafter selected for complete scrutiny. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2)& 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment Pazhayangadi G Gold, Kannur Page 2 of 3 proceedings, the AO asked to explain the source of Rs.3,31,24,523/- In response to the query of AO, the assessee explained that the amount is contributions of the partners as their capital by way of gold ornaments and foreign savings, which they have inherited from their parents. However, dissatisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the AO made the addition of the entire amount u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), however, remained unsuccessful and hence the assessee has come up in appeal before us.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee at out set pointed out that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee firm has received this amount as capital contribution from its partners and hence no addition is warranted in the hands of firm, in case the source of the capital remained unexplained then appropriate action can be taken in the hands of partners and not in the hands of firm.
Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Perusal of para 7 of the ld. CIT(A)’s order would prove beyond doubt that the assessee firm has credited this amount towards the capital account of partners as their capital in the shape of gold ornaments and other self-inherited foreign savings. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that so far as the assessee firm is concerned, the source of the money remained explained and hence no addition can be made in the hands of the firm. It is settled position of law that source of source cannot be doubted in the hands of an assessee who has proved the credits appearing in his books of accounts. If any further enquiry/investigation is required with respect to the source of the Pazhayangadi G Gold, Kannur Page 3 of 3 source, then the department is free to have take action in the hands of the partners. With these observations, we decide this appeal in favour of the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd Jun, 2025
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026