Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 30 lakhs under Section 69A, citing discrepancies in the capital contribution of a firm during the demonetization period. The AO noted that the partnership deed, claiming 16 partners, was unregistered, not notarized, had stamp papers with different issue dates, and the ITR showed only two partners. The CIT(A) upheld this addition.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument that the discrepancy in stamp paper dates was due to the vendor's purchase date versus the actual sale date, and that this issue goes to the root of the matter. The Tribunal remitted the issue regarding the source of capital contribution and the validity of the partnership deed back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.
Key Issues
The key issue is the validity and credibility of the partnership deed and the genuineness of the Rs. 30 lakh capital contribution, particularly concerning the discrepancy in the number of partners declared and the dates on the stamp papers used for the deed.
Sections Cited
69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
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.
Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi. The Ld. CIT(A) has merely reproduced the assessment order and sustained the findings of the Assessing Officer.
At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the date referred by the Assessing Officer mentioned in the front side of the stamp paper, the date on which the stamp paper vendor receives the stamp paper from the stamp registry whereas the actual date of sale by the vendor is being stamped in the back side of the stamp paper. He submitted that the purchase dates mentioned in the back side of the stamp paper are exactly same as declared by the assessee. He prayed that this issue goes to the root of the matter and it may be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the findings of the lower authorities.”
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.
This corrigendum is to be read together with order dated 17/05/2024.