IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.342/Bang/2024
Assessment Years : 2016-17
Anand Sweets & Savouries,
No.8, Sangeetha Complex,
Commercial Street,
Bengaluru-560 001.
PAN – AAIFA 8522 F
Vs.
The Dy. Commissioner of
Income Tax (CPC)
Central Circle - 1(4),
Bengaluru.
.
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, C.A
Revenue by : Shri Chinmay, Anand Jain, JCIT (DR)
Date of hearing : 04.07.2024
Date of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024
O R D E R
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed
by the ld. CIT(A)-11, Bangalore dated 09/02/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/APL
/M/250/2023-24/1060695509(1) for the assessment year 2016-17.
2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred
in confirming the order of the AO by not allowing the adjustment of cash
seized from the premises of the partners during the search proceedings.
ITA No.342/Bang/2024
Page 2 of 4
.
2.1 The necessary facts are that there was cash seized from the
premises of the partner which was offered as self assessment tax by the
partnership firm but the same was denied in the intimation generated u/s
143(1) of the Act.
3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the partners and the
partnership firm are two different assessees. The cash was sized from
the premises of the partners and, therefore, the same cannot be
adjusted against the tax liability of the partnership firm. Thus the ld. CIT-
A dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in
appeal before us.
5. The ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 33 to
193 and submitted that the cash belongs to the partnership firm, and it
was duly recorded in the books of accounts of the partnership firm. To
this effect, the ld. AR drawn our attention on the cash book of the
partnership firm placed at page 133 of the paper book. The ld. AR also
field an Affidavit duly signed by all the partners stating that the cash
belongs to the firm and none of the partners has any objection if the
impugned cash is adjusted against the tax liability of the firm. The ld. AR
also submitted that none of the partner has adjusted such cash against
their individual tax liability.
6. On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently supported the order of
the authorities below.
ITA No.342/Bang/2024
Page 3 of 4
.
7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and
perused the materials available on record. In the present case, the cash
was seized from the premises of the partners of the assessee which the
partners of the firm claimed to adjust against the liability of the
partnership firm being the assessee. However, the learned CIT-A denied
making such adjustment on the reasoning that that the partners of the
firm and the partnership firms are different entities under the provisions
of law. Therefore, the cash belonging to the partner cannot be adjusted
against the tax liability of the partnership firm. However, the learned AR
of the assessee before us contended that cash belongs to the firm. To
this effect, the ld. AR drawn our attention on page 133 of the paper book
demonstrating that cash seized by the revenue for Rs. 9,30,000.00 was
duly recorded in the cash book of the partnership firm.
7.1 Besides the above, the ld. AR before us has also filed the affidavit
of the partners duly notarized stating that the seized cash belongs to the
partnership firm which has also been recorded in the cash book of the
partnership firm. The affidavit was signed by the partners and the legal
heir of the partner. Thus, from the above, it appears to us that the cash
seized by the revenue from the premises of the partner of the firm
belongs to the firm and not the partners.
7.2 It is not out of the place to mention that a partnership firm is
represented by the partners of the firm and if anything found relating to
the partnership firm from the premises of the partner, no inference can
be drawn that such document belongs to the partner and not the
partnership firm. The relationship between the partnership firm and its
partners is closely interrelated. As such, from the finding of the
authorities below, it appears that the authorities below have formed a
ITA No.342/Bang/2024
Page 4 of 4
.
belief that the cash seized belongs to the partners merely on the
reasoning that it was seized from the premises of the partner. Such basis
formed by the Revenue is based on surmise and conjuncture.
7.3 It is equally important to note that the cash seized by the revenue
was not adjusted against the existing liability of the partners. It is
because the partners have paid the due taxes on the income disclosed
in the income tax return. This fact also indicates that the firm was the
owner of the impugned cash seized from the premises of the partner of
the firm. In view of the above, we are not convinced with the findings of
the authorities below. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT-A
and direct the AO to adjust the amount of cash seized for ₹ 9,30,000.00
against the liability of the partnership firm. Hence the ground of appeal of
the assessee is hereby allowed.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in court on 21
st
day of August, 2024
Sd/- Sd/-
(KESHAV DUBEY) (WASEEM AHMED)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Bangalore
Dated, 21st August, 2024
/ vms /
Copy to:
1.
The Applicant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT
4.
The CIT(A)
5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore.
6. Guard file
By order
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore