ARPIT CONSULTANTS & ASSOCIATES,MEERUT vs. ITO,WARD-1(1)(1), MEERUT

CORRIGENDUM We observed from the record that due to oversight facts of the other assessee was wrongly reproduced in this case and it was noticed about the error while reviewing the other order, therefore, the present corrigendum order is passed suo moto to rectify the above mistake. Accordingly, Para Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are to be read as under:-

“3. At the time of hearing, it is brought to our notice that the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.30,00,000/- by observing that the firm was constituted on 11/04/2016 with sixteen partners and each partner contributed Rs.2,00,000/- each as capital contribution, the same was deposited in its bank account during demonetization period. On query, the assessee submitted that the source of cash deposit is only out of capital contribution. The assessee has filed copy of partnership deed dated 11/04/2016. The Assessing Officer observed that on perusal of ITR for Asst. Year 2017-18, the assessee has declared only two partners having share of 50% each. He also noticed that the partnership deed is not registered nor notarized. The three stamp papers in the partnership deed submitted was issued in different dates. Therefore, the credibility of partnership deed cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that in ITR only two partners name were mentioned and certified by one of the partners i.e., Sh. Arpit Sharma. Accordingly, he rejected the claim made by the assessee and proceeded to make the addition u/s 69A of the Act.

The facts mentioned in para Nos.3,4 & 5 above to be read as such in the original order passed by us dated 17/05/2024 and other particulars and findings given in the order are to be unchanged and the present corrigendum is part of the above order.