P. Ananda Rao, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Circle - 5(1), Hyderabad

ITA 254/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66411 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K VISWANATHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Source of fund
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL M EMBER ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 : ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1998-99 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WAD-11(3), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) V/S. M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD (NOT AVAILABLE) (RESPONDENT) AND ITA NO.254/HYD/2012 : ASSESSME NT YEAR 1998-99 SHRI P.ANANDA RAO, HYDERABAD (PAN AEJPP 6639 R) (APPELLANT) V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WAD-11(3), HYDERABAD (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K.VISWANATHAM ASSESSEES BY : SHRI S.RAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING 6.8.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31.10.2012 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE APPEALS, CONCERNING CONNECTED ASSESSEES AND INVOLVING A COMMON ISSUE, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, BEING ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) VI, HYDERABAD DATED 31.3.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1 998-99, WHEREAS ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 & ITA NO.254/H/12 M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD & AN R. 2 THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, SHRI P.ANANDA RAO, VIZ. ITA NO.254/HYD/2012 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) V, HYDERABAD DATED 12.12.2011. SINCE A COMMON ISSUE I S INVOLVED, THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF WITH THIS COMMON ORD ER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. REVENUES APPEAL: ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO AN ADDITION OF RS.40,00,000, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TERMS OF S.69 OF THE ACT, WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A) BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF 19 PARTNERS, COMMENCED ITS ACTI VITY FROM 2.4.1996, THOUGH IT DID NOT COMMENCE ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THERE WERE SURVEY OPERATIONS AT THE PREMISES OF ONE SHRI P.ANANDA RAO , MANAGING PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, WHO IS ALSO IN THE FIELD OF F ILM PRODUCTION. IN THE COURSE OF THE SAID SURVEY, A PAPER EVIDENCING PURCH ASE OF CERTAIN LAND MEASURING ABOUT 2 ACRES BY SHRI P.ANANDA RAO FROM O NE SHRI N.NARYANAMURTHY OF VISAKAPATNAM WAS FOUND. ON ENQU IRIES CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT VISAKHAPATNAM IN REGARD TO THIS TRANSACTION, IT REVEALED HAT THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE HAD SEI ZED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FROM ONE SHRI V.C.GANTI OF VISAKHAPATNAM AND THESE DOCUMENTS REFLECTED TRANSACTIONS OF RS.40LAKHS MADE BY SHRI P.ANANDA RAO WITH ONE SHRI V.SRINIVAS. 4. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT OF SHRI P.ANAN D RAO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.40,00 ,000 WAS INVESTED ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 & ITA NO.254/H/12 M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD & AN R. 3 BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM, M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRI SES. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.9.2003 IN ITA NO201/HYD/2000, SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO EXAMINE THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE INVESTMENT WAS BY THE AS SESSEE FIRM M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, OR BY SHRI P.ANANDA RA O. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT OF SHRI P.ANAND RA O U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31.3.2005, MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.40 L AKHS ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, ALSO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER S.147 TO THE ASSESSEE HEREIN, AND THEREAFTER COMPLETED TH E ASSESSMENT, TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS.40 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED I NVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, VIDE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 29.3.2006 PASSED UNDER S.143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE CIT( A), DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.40 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. WHEN THE MATTER IS CARRIED IN FURTHER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT AND RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS, FOR FRES H EXAMINATION OF THE MATTER. 5. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER UNDER S.148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED NIL RETU RN OF INCOME ON 18.4.2005. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THAT ENSUED ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILED NOTE ON THE BUSINESS ACTI VITY AND SOURCES FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE PARTNERS, INCOME-TAX ASS ESSMENT DETAILS AND TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ON 14.10.2005, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPIES OF AFFIDAVITS IN RESPECT OF SIX PARTNE RS TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY OWN AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND INVESTED CAPITAL IN CASH . ALONGWITH THE LETTER OF 17.11.2005, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A STATEMENT S HOWING INVESTMENT ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 & ITA NO.254/H/12 M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD & AN R. 4 BY EACH PARTNER. VIDE LETTER DATED 17.11.20905, AS SESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION- (1) NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE FIRM TO WHOM RS.40 LAKHS WAS PAID IN TWO DIFFERENT YEARS. PROOF OF PAYMENT MONEY RECEIPTS IF ANY KEPT. (2) NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTY TO WHOM THE SAID AMOU NT WAS PAID (3) COPY OF AGREEMENT ENTERED WITH LAND OWNERS (4) EVIDENCE FOR THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE PARTNERS I .E. SUPPORTING MATERIAL FOR WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE RESPECTIVE BUSINESS AND IN CASE OF AGRICULTURISTS, THE DETAILS OF LAND OWNED BY THEM, AGRICULTURAL INCOME DERIVED, BANK PASS BOOKS, ETC. (5) COPY OF THE AGREEMENTS WITH LAND OWNER FOR TAKING B ACK THE AMOUNT INVESTED WITHOUT PURCHASING THE LAND. MODE O F THE RECEIPT WHETHER BY CASH OR BY CHEQUE. (6) ANY COMPENSATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE FIRM FROM THE LAND LORD FOR CANCELLATION OF TRANSACTION. (7) IT IS SEEN FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THAT THE PARTN ERS HAVE INVESTED THE CAPITAL RIGHT FROM APRIL, 1996, WHERE AS A SUM OF RS.19,51,250 BEING ADVANCE WAS PAID FOR LAND PUR CHASE ON 25.3.1997 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 1997-98. SIMILARL Y, THE PARTNERS HAVE INVESTED THE CAPITAL FROM THE MONTH OF APRIL, 1997 ONWARDS AND A SUM OF RS.21,48,750- WAS PAID T O THE LAND LORD ON 24.3.1998 BEING ADVANCE FOR LAND PURCH ASER RELATING TO THE A.Y. 1998-99. PLEASE PRODUCE THE B ANK PASS BOOK AND INFORM THE MANNER IN WHICH THE FUNDS WERE UTILISED THROUGH OUT THE YEAR, I.E. FOR BOTH THE YE ARS, ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 & ITA NO.254/H/12 M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD & AN R. 5 IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED REPLY ON 29.11. 2005. ASSESSEES REPLY ITEM-WISE, AS REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IS AS FOLLOWS- 1. THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO IS TO PU RCHASE LAND SITUATED AT 9/6, KAPPARADA(V), MADHAVADARA, VI ZAG FOR WHICH RS.41 LAKHS WAS PAID IN TWO DIFFERENT YEA RS. DURING THE PERIOD OF ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT THE SE LLING PARTY HAS GIVEN RECEIPT OF PAYMENT AND WHEN THE SAM E WAS NOT MATERIALIZED AND WHEN THE AMOUNT RETURNED B Y THE PARTY, THE RECEIPTS WERE TAKEN BACK BY THE SELL ING PARTY. HENCE, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PROOF OF PAYMENT WITH US. 2. THE PERSON ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT IS MR.V.SRINI VAS GPA HOLDER OF THE PROPERTY LAND ADDRESS OF HIS MIG 16, LASSONBY COLONY, VIZAG. STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ACIT,5(1) AT THAT TIME ASSESSME NT IN THE CASE OF SHRI P.ANNDA RAO A.YS 1997-98 AND 1998- 99. 3. THE COPY OF AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH THE SELLING PARTY WAS RETURNED TO THE PARTY WHEN THE TRANSACTIO N WAS NOT MATERIALIZED. HENCE, WE ARE NOT HAVING ANY COPY OF THE SAME. 4. THE BOOKS ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S. JAY ASRI ANAND ENTERPRISES WAS ALREADY SUBMITTED TO YOU WHIC H SHOWS THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT MADE BY EACH PARTNE R. NORMALLY ITS NOT THE PRACTICE OF THE FIRM TO ASK A BOUT THE INDIVIDUAL DETAILS OF THE PARTNERS FROM WHERE THEY BRING THE CAPITAL FUND. IT WILL NOT KEEP ANY RECORDED EV IDENCE ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 & ITA NO.254/H/12 M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD & AN R. 6 OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL SOURCES AND HOW THEY ARE BRING THE CAPITAL FUND. IN HIS CASE ALSO THE FIRM NEVER QUES TION THE INDIVIDUAL SOURCES AND NO RECORD KEPT IN THIS MATTE R. HENCE THE FIRM IS NOT HAVING ANY INFORMATION PERTAI NING TO THE SAME. 5. THE FIRM HAS RECEIVED THE SAID AMOUNT FROM THE SELL ING PARTY IN CASH ONLY. ONCE THEY PAID BACK THE CASH T HE FIRM HAS RETURNED THE RECEIPTS AND AGREEMENT TO THE M. THAT ITSELF CANCELLATION OF THE TRANSACTION. NO SE PARATE RECEIPTS KEPT IN THIS REGARD. 6. NO COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE FIRM DUE TO THE CANCELLATION OF THE TRANSACTION. 7. THE FIRM HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY BANKING TRANSACIT6O N. AS AND WHEN REQUIRED BY THE SELLER, THE PARTNERS US ED TO BRING THE AMOUNTS AND ON THE DATE OF ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT AND OTHER TRANSACTIONS THE FIRM HAS RETUR NED THE PAYMENTS TO THE SELLING PARTIES. THIS TRANSACTI ON HAS NOT STARTED WITHIN A DAY AND COMPLETED ON THE SAME DAY. HENCE ON VARIOUS DAYS THE PARTNERS BROUGHT THE AMOUNTS AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT. FROM THE ABOVE REPLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUD ED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE ANY PROOF EITHER F OR PAYMENT OR RECEIPT STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE TO SHRI V.SRINIVAS, AND IT IS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE EVEN COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO FOR THE SAID TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY DENIED HAVING ANY INFORMATION PERTAIN ING TO THE PARTNERS; INVESTMENTS OR SOURCES FOR THEM. AS REGARDS THE MO DE OF PAYMENT, ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 & ITA NO.254/H/12 M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD & AN R. 7 ASSESSEE CLEARLY ADMITTED THE NON-MAINTENANCE OF AN Y BANK ACCOUNT AND SUBMITTED THAT AS AND WHEN THE SELLER REQUIRED MONEY, PARTNERS BROUGHT IN INVESTMENTS, AND THE SAME WAS PAID TO TH E SELLER. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRO DUCE THE PARTNERS FOR EXAMINATION. HOWEVER, MANAGING PARTNER OF THE FIRM, SHRI P.ANANDA RAO, EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE TH E PARTNERS. FROM THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT T HE PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS A MAKE BELIEVE THING AND IS NOT A GENUINE ONE, AND NONE OF THE PARTNERS EXCEPT SHRI P.ANANDA RAO HAS WHEREWITHAL T O INVEST. THE ONUS OF PROVING THE INVESTMENTS, WHICH SQUARELY LIE D WITH THE ASSESSEE FIRM, COULD NOT BE DISCHARGED. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FORTIFIED THE ABOVE CONCL USIONS, WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS IN THE PENULTIMATE PARA OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER- IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HE RE THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.30.3.01, FOR THE R EASONS DISCUSSED THEREIN, THE THEN ITO W ARD 1(3), HYDERABAD HAS OPINED THAT (PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) THAT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION HAS TO BE TREATED AS THE ASSESSEE S UN EXPLAINED ASSET/INVESTMENT VIS--VIS UNEXPLAINED INCOME FOR T HE ASST. YEAR 1998-99 U/S. 69 OF THE I.T.ACT. IN THE RE-ASS ESSMENT ORDER US/. 143(3) R.W.SEC 254 DT.31.3.05, CONSEQUEN T TO THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT ALSO, THE ASST. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5(1), HYDERABAD VIDE PARA 26 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD CONCLUSIVELY EXPRESSED HIS DE CISION THAT THE MONEY BORROWED FROM THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVID UAL CAPACITY AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE HIS CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.40 LAKHS WAS ACTUALLY ADVANCED BY THE FIRM M/S. JAYANT ANAND ENTERPRISES. IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT THAT ENSUED, THUS, THE ASSES SING OFFICER HOLDING THE VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.40 LAKHS WAS NOT EX PLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON A TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.40 LAKHS VIDE ORDER DATED 29.3.2006. ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 & ITA NO.254/H/12 M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD & AN R. 8 7. ON APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER DATED 29.3. 2008, THE CIT(A) BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.3.2011, AFTER EXTRACTING THE DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE FROM PA GES 3 TO 9, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF THE AMOUN TS INVESTED BY THE NINETEEN PARTNERS, ALONGWITH THE DETAILS OF THEIR P ERSONAL IDENTITY AND SOURCES OF INCOME, IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLA IM AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE INVESTMENTS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE PARTNERS, DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.40 LAKHS WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS- I PERUSED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RECORDS OF THE APPELLANT FIRM. IT IS SEEN FORM THE RECORDS TH AT THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES DID NO T CARRY ON ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IT DID NOT EARN ANY INCOME. THE PARTNERS MADE INVESTMENT AND PURCHASED THE LANDED PROPERTY. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS NOT EVEN SOLD. THEREFORE, I AM IN AGRE EMENT WITH THE LEARNED A.R. THAT THE ABOVE ADDITION U/S. 69 OF THE I.T. ACT SHOULD NOT BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELL ANT HEREIN, IN COMING TO SUCH A DECISION, I AM FORTIFIED BY THE FO LLOWING DECISIONS- A) THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SURPEME COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT V/S. BHARATH ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY R EPORTED IN 83 ITR 187; B) THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. SMT. P.K.NOORJEHAN REPORTED IN 237 ITR 570. FURTHER, I ALSO FIND THAT THE APPELLANT PRODUCED PR OOF WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE PARTNERS. THE ADDRESSES O F THE PARTNERS AND OTHER DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD NO INFORMATION TO THE CONTRARY. ALL THE PARTNER S HAVE ACCEPTED THAT THEY HAVE INVESTED THE AMOUNT IN THE PARTNERSHIP. MAJORITY OF THE PARTNERS ARE THE ASSESSEES AND THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE PARTNERS ARE ALREADY EXTRACTED ABOVE. ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 & ITA NO.254/H/12 M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD & AN R. 9 IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATIONS AND IN VIEW OF THE FAC T THAT THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM DID NOT CARRY ON ANY BUSINESS ACTI VITY AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT HE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN TH E CASE OF THE APPELLANT HEREIN WAS COMPLETED ON PROTECTIVE BASIS, I DELETE THE ADDITION MADE OF RSR.40,00,000/- IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ST RONGLY SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE FACT THAT THE PART NERS, WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE CONTRIBUTED THE AMOUNT OF RS.40 LAKHS, TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY, HAD THE CAPACITY TO INVEST. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN SPITE OF T HE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE PARTNERS FOR EXAMINATION, ONLY TO CAUSE HINDRANCE IN THE INVESTI GATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FIND OUT THE GENUINENESS OF TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CONCERNED PARTNERS WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF LAND FOR THE FIRM.. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS JUSTIFIED. 10 THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE CIT(A), ONLY AFTER SA TISFYING HIMSELF WITH THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE INVESTMEN T MADE BY THE PARTNERS, HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE FACT THAT THE INVE STMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE PARTNERS, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM, AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER S.69 OF THE A CT. ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 & ITA NO.254/H/12 M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD & AN R. 10 11 WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE FACTS DISCUSSED HEREINBEFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.40 LAKHS HAS BEEN MADE ON SUBSTANTIV E BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, WHEREAS THE SAME AM OUNT HAS BEEN ADDED ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE MANAG ING PARTNER, SHRI P.AANDA RAO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT T HE ACTUAL INVESTMENT OF RS.40 LAKHS, THOUGH SAID TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE FIRM OUT OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF ALL THE PARTNERS, IN R EALITY, THE AMOUNT WAS INVESTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER, SRHI P.ANANDA RAO ALONE OUT OF UNEXPLAINED INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFOR E, REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.40 LAKHS WAS INVESTED BY THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM AND CONSEQUENTLY, ASSESSED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE FIRM. THE CIT(A) ACCE PTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE BY THE NINETEE N PARTNERS, BY RELYING UPON THE EVIDENCES LIKE THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY THE PARTNERS. 12. FROM THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF EACH PARTNER, IT IS INTERESTING TO N OTE THAT THOUGH SOME OF THEM ARE INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES, BUT THEY STARTED FILING THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME ONLY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, TH AT TOO BY DECLARING SMALL AMOUNTS OF INCOME, AND NOT BEFORE, AND SOME OF THE PARTNERS ARE NOTE EVEN INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES AND TH EY HAVE STATED TO HAVE INVESTED THE MONEY OUT OF SAVINGS FROM THE AGR ICULTURAL INCOME DERIVED BY THEM. THE CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSES SEES VERSION, WITHOUT EXAMINING THE FACT AS TO WHETHER THE PARTNE RS HAD CAPACITY TO INVEST THE AMOUNT. THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY THE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SOME OF THE PARTNERS, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCE PTED WITHOUT FURTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE PARTNERS ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 & ITA NO.254/H/12 M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD & AN R. 11 WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE INVESTED THE MONEY ACTUALLY HA D THE SOURCE AND CAPACITY TO INVEST. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD AS KED THE MANAGING PARTNER SHRI P.ANANDA RAO TO PRODUCE ALL THE PARTNE RS, WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE INVESTED THE MONEY, BUT SHRI P.ANANDA RAO EXPR ESSED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THEM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S STOPPED AT THAT WITHOUT EXERCISING HIS POWER IN ENFORCING THE ATTEN DANCE OF THE PARTNERS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NECESSARY ENQUI RY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED WITH THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS TO ASCERTAIN THE FACT AS TO WHETHER IN REALITY, THEY HAD INVESTED THE AMOUNTS O R NOT. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT CARRIED OUT NECESSARY PROBE TO ASCERTA IN THE FINANCIAL CAPABILITY OF THE PARTNERS, WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE IN VESTED THE AMOUNTS. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) REVEALS THAT SHE HAS MEREL Y GONE BY THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. WHILE WE RESPECTFULLY CONCUR WITH THE PRINCI PLES OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. SMT.P .K.NOORJEHAN (237 ITR 570), WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD T HAT S.69 OF THE ACT CONFERS A CLEAR DISCRETION ON THE INCOME TAX OFFICE R TO TREAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SATISFACTORILY EXP LAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT THE IN COME-TAX OFFICER IS NOT OBLIGED TO TREAT SUCH SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AS I NCOME IN EVERY CASE WHERE SUCH EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE NOT SATISFACTORY. HOWEVER, IN THE SAME DECISION, THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SO URCE OF THE INVESTMENT SHOULD BE TREATED AS INCOME OR NOT UNDER S.69 OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF E ACH CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PARTNE RS WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE THE INVESTMENT STARTED FLING THE RETURNS ONLY FROM THE ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 & ITA NO.254/H/12 M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD & AN R. 12 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, THAT TOO, DECLARING ONLY M ARGINAL AMOUNTS OF INCOME. IT IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO ENQUIRE INTO THE MATTER TO FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER ACTUALLY THEY HAD CAPACITY TO MAK E THE INVESTMENTS STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THEM. 14. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, SIN CE PROPER ENQUIRY HAS NOT BEEN CONDUCTED EITHER BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER OR THE AT THE FIRST APPELLATE STAGE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RES TORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO SHALL CO NDUCT NECESSARY ENQUIRY TO FIND OUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE PAR TNERS THAT THEY HAD INVESTED THE AMOUNTS OF RS.40 LAKHS FOR THE PURCHAS E OF THE LAND BY THE FIRM. IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENFOR CE THE ATTENDANCE OF THE CONCERNED PARTNERS TO EXAMINE THEM IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN S.131 OF THE ACT. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER SHALL ACCORDINGLY DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASS ESSEE. 15. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ASSESSEES APPEAL: ITA NO.254/HYD/2012 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 16. THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.40 LAKHS. 17. FACTS IN BRIEF RELATING TO THE POINT IN DISPUT E ARE SIMILAR, WITH CHEQUERED HISTORY, AS IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM, M/S. JAYASHREE AAND ENTERPRISES DISCUSSED ABOVE, WITH THE ORIGINAL ASS ESSMENT UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30.3.2001 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 & ITA NO.254/H/12 M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD & AN R. 13 COMPLETED ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.79,98,466, AS AGA INST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.1,98,730, AFTER MAKING INTER-ALIA AN A DDITION OF RS.60,29,412 BEING UNEXPLAINED ASSET/INVESTMENT IN RESPECT OF LOAN ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHRI V.SRIIVAS. WHILE THE SAID LOAN OF RS.60,29,412 WAS RESTRICTED ON APPEAL BY THE CIT(A) TO RS.45,00,000, ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT FOR DE NOVO FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT . IN THE ASSESSMENT THUS COMPLETED DE NOVO, AN ADDITION OF RS.40 LAKHS WAS MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED ASSET/IN VESTMENT IN RESPECT OF LOAN ADVANCED TO SHRI SRINIVAS. WHILE THE CIT(A ) ON APPEAL, CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION, ON FURTHER APPEAL AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSIDER ATION OF THE MATTER, AND PASSING A FRESH APPELLATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASS ESSEE. 18. BY THE ORDER PASSED IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER S OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS IMPUGNED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE CIT(A) AFTER DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE MATTER, CONFIRMED THE A DDITION OF RS.40 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, VIDE PARA 5.6 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS- 5.6 AS PER THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF HONBLE ITAT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE COPIE S OF DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY HIM FOR MAKING ADDITIONS T O THE APPELLANT. NOWHERE IN THE SAID OBSERVATIONS OF HON BLE ITAT THERE IS ANY REFERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL DOCUM ENTS. IN VIEW OF THE FACT, THERE IS NO MERIT IN SUCH CONTENTION OF THE A PPELLANT AND HENCE THE SAME IS REJECTED. IT M AY BE FURTHER MENTIONED HERE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY FURNISHED TH E COPIES OF THOSE DOCUMENTS, WHICH HE HAS RECEIVED FROM THE ENF ORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, TO THE APPELLANT. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER S STATED THAT FROM THE SUB-REGISTRAR, VIASAKHAPATNAM THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS OBTAINED THE INFORMATION THAT THE LAND WAS PURC HASED BY ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 & ITA NO.254/H/12 M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD & AN R. 14 M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS STATED THAT IN PARA 18 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS MERELY MENTIONED THAT AS PER THE LETTER DATED 3 0.03.2005, RECEIVED FROM THE SUB-REGISTRAR, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, THE DOCUM ENTS VIDE NO.P/883/1997 WERE IN THE NAME OF M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES. FURTHER, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS ACCEPTED THE EXISTENCE OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS N OT CORRECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 25 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS CLEARLY NOTED THAT THOUGH THE FIRM CAME INTO EXISTE NCE ON 02.04.1996 AS PER THE SAID PARTNERSHIP DEED, IN ABS ENCE OF ANY RETURN OF INCOM E FILED BY THE SAID FIRM, IT IS DIFFICULT TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE PARTNERSHIP OR THE ACTIVITIES OF THE FIRM. FURTHER, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT HA S FILED AFFIDAVITS FROM ALL THE PARTNERS OF M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, IS NOT CORRECT, AS EVIDENT FROM THE OB SERVATIONS MADE BY THE A0 IN PARA 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN HE HAS MENTIONED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED AFFIDAV ITS ONLY FROM SIX PARTNERS WHICH WERE NOTARIZED ONLY ON 215.1.200 5. LASTLY, THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT HAS PRODUCE D THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM AND THE OTHER CONTENTION THA T AN AMOUNT OF RS.40,00,000 IS RECORDED IN THE SAID BOOKS OF TH E FIRM, HAVE NO MERIT SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE TH AT RS.40,00,000 WAS ADVANCED BY THE FIRM. IN PARA 25 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLEARL Y NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT MONEY WAS ACTUALLY A DVANCED BY THE FIRM FROM OUT OF THE AMOUNTS INTRODUCED AS CAPI TAL BY THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM. UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCE S AND HAVING REGARD TO THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN PARA 26 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT AS PER THE DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD SUPPORTING THAT THE APPELLANT HA D ACTUALLY ADVANCED AN AMOUNT OF RS.40,00,000 TO SRI V.SRINIVA S IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, HE WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.40,00,000 TO THE INCOM E OF THE APPELLANT, THEREBY TAXING THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE HA NDS OF THE APPELLANT, TREATING THE SAME AS HIS UNEXPLAINED INV ESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDIT ION OF RS.40 LAKHS IS CONFIRMED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, ASSESSEE PREFERRED SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 19. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE FACTS ON RECORD CLEARL Y PROVE THAT THE INVESTMENT OF RS.40 LAKHS TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF P ROPERTY WAS MADE ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 & ITA NO.254/H/12 M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD & AN R. 15 BY THE FIRM, M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES AND A LL THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM HAVE ALSO CONFIRMED OF HAVING INVESTED THE AMOUNT OF RS.40 LAKHS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY I N THE FIRM. IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE INFORMATION COLLECTED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE SUB-REGISTRARS OFFICE ALSO INDICATED THE FACT THAT REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN THE NAME OF THE PARTNERSHIP M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI V.SRINIVAS, THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY-HOLDER HE HAS ALSO CLEARL Y STATED CATEGORICALLY THAT BY VIRTUE OF GENERAL POWER OF AT TORNEY EXECUTED IN HIS NAME, HE HAS NEGOTIATED FOR THE PURCHASE BY M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES THROUGH SHRI N.NARAYANA MURTHY OF MADHA VADHARA VISAKHAPATNAM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE FACTS CLEARL Y GOES TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER INVOLVED IN HIS INDIVID UAL CAPACITY IN INVESTING THE AMOUNT OF RS.40 LAKHS TOWARDS THE PUR CHASE OF THE PROPERTY. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FO R THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN AN AMOUNT ADDED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DEL ETED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON MERITS, THE SAME CANNOT BE A GAIN ADDED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PA RTNER. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFO RE, SUBMITTED FOR DELETING THE AMOUNT OF RS.40 LAKHS ADDED ON SUBSTAN TIVE BASIS BY THE CIT(A). 20. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON TH E OTHER HAND, STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) O N THIS ISSUE, AND SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.40 LAKHS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BE SUSTAINED. ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 & ITA NO.254/H/12 M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD & AN R. 16 21. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER, WE HAVE CONSIDERED, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IS A MANAGING PARTNER, THE ADDI TION OF THE VERY SAME AMOUNT RS.40 LAKHS, WHICH HAS BEEN MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT DELETED BY THE CIT(A). AFTER ELABORAT E CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER IN THAT CONTEXT, VIDE PARAS 11 TO 14 OF THIS ORDER, WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WITH OUR DECISION. VIDE PARA 14, WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) IMPUGNED IN THAT APPEAL AND RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITH CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS LIKE EXAMINING THE PARTNE RS WHO HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS THE INVESTMENT OF THE F IRM IN THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY, ETC., AND A DIRECTION TO DECIDE TH E ISSUE RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.40 LAKHS AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE FATE OF THE SAID ADDITION IN THE PROC EEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM THAT MAY BE TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN PURSUANCE OF OUR DIRECTIONS HEREINABOVE, HAS A BEARING ON THE AD DITION OF RS.40 LAKHS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE HEREIN, SINCE THE ROOT CAUSE FOR BOTH THE ADDITIONS, IS THE SAME, VIZ. INV ESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. THE ENQUIRY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE SUB-REGISTRAR IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT HER EIN, REVEALED THAT THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN THE NAME OF THE FIR M, AND NOT THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE HEREIN, WHO IS ONE OUT OF THE NI NETEEN PARTNERS, THOUGH HE IS A MANAGING PARTNER REPRESENTING THE EN TIRE FIRM IN THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION BY THE FIRM. T HE SAID VERSION IS ALSO CORROBORATED BY THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SRINIVAS , THE GPA HOLDER, WHO NEGOTIATED FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY BY THE FIRM. CONSIDERING TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE SET ASIDE ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 & ITA NO.254/H/12 M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD & AN R. 17 THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESENT APPEAL AS WELL, AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION, IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW AND IN CONSONANCE WITH THE VIEW THAT MAY BE TAKEN IN THE C ASE OF THE FIRM AS DIRECTED, VIDE PARA 14, HEREINABOVE, AFTER GIVING R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MAT TER, THE OTHER ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL, BEING WITH REGARD TO INTER EST UNDER S.234A AND S.234B IS RENDERED ACADEMIC AND DOES NOT WARRANT ADJUDICATION. 22. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 23. BEFORE PARTING WITH THIS ORDER, WE MAKE IT CL EAR THAT IF THE INVESTMENT OF RS.40 LAKHS STANDS EXPLAINED AT THE H ANDS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THEN, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT NO ADDIT ION MAY BE WARRANTED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM, AND THAT BEING THE SITUAT ION, NO FURTHER ADDITION OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNT CAN ME MADE EVEN A T THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE-QUA-THE INDIVIDUAL. HOWEVER, IF ONLY PART OF THE SUM OR SUMS STANDS EXPLAINED AS THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE PARTNE RS, IT IS ONLY THE REMAINING SUMS THAT STAND UNEXPLAINED WHICH MAY WAR RANT ADDITIONS EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE FIRM OR IN THE HAND S OF THE PARTNERS, INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE HEREIN. 24. TO SUM UP, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 31.10.2012 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED/- 31 ST OCTOBER, 2012 ITA NO.1182/HYD/2011 & ITA NO.254/H/12 M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD & AN R. 18 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. 2. M/S. JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, 3-2-98. BAGH AMEERI, KUKAPTALLY, HYDERABAD SHRI P.ANANDA RAO, C/O. SHRI S.RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, SHIRYA'S ELEGANCE, NO.3-6-643, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500029 3. 4. 3. 4 5. 6. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(3). HYDERABAD ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 5(1), HYDER ABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-VI, HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) V, HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IV, HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V, HYDERABAD 7. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD B.V.S.