J.S. ANANTH vs. ACIT, BANGALORE
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 noted that the Rs. 10 lakhs was indeed part of the Rs. 3.04 crores surrendered by the firm and accounted for by the CIT(A) in the firm's assessment. Therefore, adding it again to the individual assessee's income was not justified.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 10 lakhs to the assessee's income for marriage expenses, as it was not declared in the return. This amount was part of a larger surrender made by the assessee's firm, Sudarshan Silks, which included unaccounted marriage expenses.
What were the issues?
Whether an amount surrendered by a firm and accounted for in its assessment can be added again to the income of an individual partner.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENGALURU BENCH B, BENGALURU
Before: SHRI. A. K. GARODIA & SHRI. LALIET KUMAR
Heard on : 22.08.2017 Pronounced on : 13.10.2017 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
This appeal is filed by the assessee, against the order of the CIT (A), Mysuru, dt.13.12.2012, for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee had filed the grounds of appeal in which he has raised several grounds. Thereafter the assessee has filed the additional grounds which is as under :
ITA.329/Bang/2013 Page - 2 After filing the additional grounds, the assessee has not pressed the grounds raised earlier and therefore, we would only be adjudicating the additional grounds.
It is the case of the assessee that the AO has made an addition of Rs.10 lakhs on account of marriage expenses of the assessee’s son, J. S. Santosh, on the ground that the same is not shown in the return of income filed by the appellant. A search was carried out u/s.132 of the Act, in the premises of the assessee along with others of Sudarshan Silks group on 11.10.2007, during the course of which various documents were found and seized. Notice u/s.153A was issued in response to which assessee filed the return. It was the case of the ITA.329/Bang/2013 Page - 3 assessee that the amount for which addition was made by the AO was part of the surrender made by Sudarshan Silks of which the assessee was a partner and duly accounted for the same in the surrender amount of Rs.3.04 crores. It was further contended that once the amount has been surrendered by the firm of the assessee, it cannot be added again in the hands of the individual assessee. Aggrieved by the addition made by the AO, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A), who confirmed the order of the AO. Further aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us.
Before us, the Ld. AR made the submissions and pleaded that the addition is to be deleted.
On the other hand the Ld. DR vehemently argued that the authorities have given cogent reason for making the addition and therefore the appeal of the assessee is devoid of merit and is required to be dismissed.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The assessee has submitted that the amount of Rs.10 lakhs was included in the admitted amount of Rs.3.04 crores as per the letter dt.06.12.2007. There is no dispute on this aspect because as per the order of the CIT (A) rendered in the case of Sudarshan Silks, dt.26.09.2011 for AYs. 2004-05 to 1008-09, it was noted by the CIT (A), in para 5.91 that there is an amount declared of Rs.3,04,25,500/- including the amount of Rs.10 lakhs on account of unaccounted amounts spent on the marriage of Santosh. The discussion on this ITA.329/Bang/2013 Page - 4 issue by the CIT (A) as in para 5.9.3 of the order (supra) is reproduced below for the sake of ready reference :
From the above extract from the order of the CIT (A), it is clear that the amount of Rs.55,29,600/- which is inclusive of the amount of Rs.10 lakhs is to be considered in the hands of the partner, i.e., the present assessee, as per the present assessment order in the hands of the assessee before us. It is seen that neither any amount has been declared as income on this account nor any separate addition was made by the AO on this account, apart from making an addition of Rs.10 lakhs in the hands of the assessee. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the order of the CIT (A) on this issue. We uphold the order of the CIT(A).
ITA.329/Bang/2013 Page - 5
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13th day of October, 2017.
More judgments on Section 132
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- 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
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026