M/s. Balaji Assocites, CHHINDWARA V. Income Tax Officer, CHHINDWARA

ITA 90/JAB/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87497 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHISHEKH SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: G N PUROHIT
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Gift; Question of law
• Section: 131; 68; 6; 143(3)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 90/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PAGE 1 OF 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR [CORAM: I C SUDHIR JM AND PRAMOD KUMAR AM] I.T.A. NO. 90/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/S BALAJI ASSOCIATES, .APPELLANT C/O RATHI ELECTRICALS, COLLEGE ROAD, LALBAGH, CHHINDWARA. [PAN: AAHFB 6772 F] VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, .RESP ONDENT CHHINDWARA. APPEARANCES BY: G.N. PUROHIT FOR THE APPELLANT ABHISHEKH SHUKLA FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING: 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER: 27 TH MARCH, 2015 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24 TH JULY, 2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE MAT TER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS :- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,50,000/- IN THE ACC OUNT OF PARTNER MANJIT SINGH MALHOTRA THE ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIED SHOULD B E DELETED. I.T.A. NO. 90/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PAGE 2 OF 9 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUND THE CAPITA L INVESTMENT MADE BY THE PARTNER, WHO IS A SEPARATE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN HIS PERSONAL HANDS, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN TH E HANDS OF FIRM IN VIEW OF M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF METACHEM IND USTRIES. 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE PERMITTED TO SUBMIT EVI DENCE THAT IS CONFIRMATION OF PARTNER AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF T HIS APPEAL. 3. AS EVIDENT FROM PLAIN READING OF THESE GRIEVANCE S, THE SHORT ISSUE THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,50,000/-, REPRESE NTING CAPITAL CONTRIBUTED BY SHRI MANJEET SINGH MALHOTRA, AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE FIRM. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO TICED THAT ONE OF THE PARTNERS IN THE ASSESSEE FIRM SHRI MANJIT SINGH MAL HOTRA HAS CONTRIBUTED CAPITAL OF RS.8,50,000/- IN CASH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRO CEEDED TO TREAT THIS ACCRETION IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF SHRI MANJEET SINGH MALHOT RA AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE C ARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THE LEA RNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION SO MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS :- II. REGARDING CREDIT IN THE NAME OF SHRI MANJEET SINGH MALHOTRAS CONTRIBUTION OF RS.8,50,000/-, THE CONTENTION OF TH E COUNSEL IS NOT TENABLE, ESPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE REPORT FROM THE AO O F SHRI MANJEET SINGH MALHOTRA AND THE LACK OF EVIDENTIARY DOCUMENTS TO S UPPORT HIS CLAIM. NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CREDIT WAS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE FIRM. THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE ITS BURDEN TO S ATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE CREDIT ENTRY IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE FIRM COULD ALSO NOT ESTABLISH CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN INV ESTED BY THIS PARTICULAR PERSON. SHRI MANJEET SINGH MALHOTRA HAS NOT OWNED T HE ENTRY AT ANY STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSMENT OR APPELLATE. THE EXPLANATI ON, AS WELL AS THE SOURCE I.T.A. NO. 90/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PAGE 3 OF 9 OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS NOT SATISFACTORY. HENCE, THE AO HAS CORRECTLY TAKEN THE AMOUNT TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE F IRM. III. THE INQUIRY MADE CONFIRMED THAT DETAILS AS AV AILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDERS OF THE FIRM, SUCH AS THAT SHRI M ANJEET SINGH MALHOTRA HAD NOT SUFFICIENT DISCLOSED INCOME, WHICH COULD BE REA SONABLE EXPLAINED AS SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN M/S. BALAJI ASSOCIATES TO T HE TUNE OF RS.8,50,000/- IN F.Y. 2006-07. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM O F STRAINED RELATIONS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AT FACE VALUE AND HAS TINGES OF AFTER-T HOUGHT. I TEND NOT TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE COUNSEL REGARDING NO ADD ITION COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM, IF THE CREDITS ARE IN THE PA RTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN JAGMOHAN RAM RAMCHANDRA VS. CIT 274 IT R 405 (ALL.) (2005) THAT UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN THE NAME OF PARTNERS IN THE BOOKS OF THEIR FIRM CAN BE TREATED AS INCOME OF FIRM. THE CASE LAW RELI ED ON BY THE COUNSEL HAS BEEN PERUSED AND IT IS FOUND TO BE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THIS INSTANT CASE. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION IN THE PREC EDING PARAS, THE ADDITION OF RS.8,50,000/- MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE FIRM U/S. 6 8 IS CONFIRMED. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF T HE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 7. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT EXISTENCE OF SHRI MANJEET SINGH MALHOTRA. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE VERIFICATIONS B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SHRI MANJEET SINGH MALHOTRA REVEA LS THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT DISCLOSED INCOME BUT THEN THE ADDITION W AS REQUIRED TO BE MADE, IF AT ALL TO BE MADE, IN THE HANDS OF SHRI MALHOTRA. JUST BECAUSE HE INVESTED MONIES OUT OF HIS UNACCOUNTED FUNDS, EVEN IF THAT BE SO, T HE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM THAT HE INVESTED IN. IN SUPPO RT OF THIS PROPOSITION WE FIND SUPPORT FROM A JUDGMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF I.T.A. NO. 90/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PAGE 4 OF 9 CIT VS. RAMESHWAR DASS SURESH PAL CHEEKA (208 CTR 4 59) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS :- 5. WE ARE ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY T HE TRIBUNAL THAT NO CASE WAS MADE OUT FOR ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE FIRM EVEN IF DEPOSITS MADE WITH THE FIRM BY THE PARTNERS WERE UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE PARTNE RS. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY US IN OUR RECENT ORDER PASSED ON 6TH NOV., 2006 I N IT APPEAL NO. 370 OF 2006, CIT VS. METAL & METALS OF INDIA [REPORTED AT (2007) 208 CTR (P&H) 457ED.], WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : 'IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FIRM HAS GIVEN EXPLANATION A BOUT THE SOURCE NAMELY SURESH BHANDARI, PARTNER, WHO HIMSELF IS AN ASSESSEE. THE SAID PARTNER HAS ADMITTED HAVING MADE DEPOSIT WITH THE FIRM. THUS, AS FAR AS THE FIRM I S CONCERNED, EVEN IF THE GIFT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY SURESH BHANDARI IS TO BE REJECTED, THE SAID SURESH BHANDARI MAY BE LIABLE TO BE TAXED BY TREATING THE SA ID AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME, BUT THE FIRM CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO TAX ON T HAT GROUND.' 6. WE MAY ALSO REFER TO THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN CIT VS. JAISWAL MOTOR FINANCE (SUPRA), IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : '......IT APPEARS TO BE WELL SETTLED THAT IF THERE A RE CASH CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM IN WHICH THE ACCOUNTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNER S EXIST AND IT IS FOUND AS A FACT THAT CASH WAS RECEIVED BY THE FIRM FROM ITS PAR TNERS, THEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO INDICATE THAT THEY WERE PROFITS OF THE FI RM, IT COULD NOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM.' 7. IN NARAYANDAS KEDARNATH VS. CIT (SUPRA), IT WAS O BSERVED AS UNDER : '....... THERE MAY BE A GENUINE CASE WHERE A PARTNER OR A STRANGER MAY BRING IN MONEYS TO THE CREDIT OF THE FIRM AND THE PARTNER OR THE STRANGER MAY HAVE COME INTO THOSE MONEYS BY THOROUGHLY DISHONEST MEANS, BUT IT IS N OT FOR THE FIRM WHICH IS BEING ASSESSED TO SATISFY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE MONEYS WHI CH IT RECEIVED FROM THE PARTNER OR THE STRANGER WERE MONEYS WHICH THE PARTNER O R THE STRANGER OBTAINED BY HONEST MEANS. IN MY OPINION THAT WOULD BE THROWING TOO HEAVY A BURDEN UPON THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT WISH TO LAY DOWN ANY GENERAL LAW WHICH SHOULD APPLY TO ALL CASES. IN MOST CASES IT WOULD DEPEND UPON THE FACTS ACTUALLY FOUND. ON THE FACTS ACTUALLY FOUND AND STRICTLY CONFINING OUR DECISION TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THERE WERE NO MATERIALS ON WHICH THE DEPAR TMENT COULD HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE CREDITS REPRESENTED UNDISCLO SED PROFITS OF THE FIRM.' 8. IN CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION (P) LTD. (SUPRA), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER : I.T.A. NO. 90/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PAGE 5 OF 9 'IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE NAMES AND ADD RESSES OF THE ALLEGED CREDITORS. IT WAS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE SAID CRE DITORS WERE INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES. THEIR INDEX NUMBERS WERE IN THE FILE OF T HE REVENUE. THE REVENUE, APART FROM ISSUING NOTICES UNDER S. 131 AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, DID NOT PURSUE THE MATTER FURTHER. THE REVENUE DID NOT EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE SAID ALLEGED CREDITORS TO FIND OUT WHETHER THEY WERE CREDITWORTHY OR WERE SUCH WHO COULD ADVANCE THE ALLEGED LOANS. THERE WAS NO EFFORT MADE T O PURSUE THE SO-CALLED ALLEGED CREDITORS. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DO ANYTHING FURTHER. IN THE PREMISES, IF THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE BURDEN THAT LAY ON HIM, THEN IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT SUCH A CONCLUSION WAS UNREASONABLE OR PERVERSE OR BASED ON NO EVIDENCE. I F THE CONCLUSION IS BASED ON SOME EVIDENCE ON WHICH A CONCLUSION COULD BE ARRIVED AT, N O QUESTION OF LAW AS SUCH ARISES.' 9. IN CIT VS. RAM NARAIN GOEL (SUPRA), THIS COURT HELD AS UNDER : '..... THE TRIBUNAL CORRECTLY TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE LOANS. SUSPICION, HOWSOEVER, STRONG, CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF EVIDENCE OR PROOF.' 10. WE MAY ALSO REFER TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COU RT ON THIS ISSUE IN GIRDHARI LAL NANNELAL VS. CST (1977) 109 ITR 726 (SC), WHEREIN THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER : 'FURTHER, WHERE, AS IN A CASE LIKE THE PRESENT, A CRED IT ENTRY IN RESPECT OF RS. 10,000 STANDS IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE OF THE PARTNER, NO PRES UMPTION ARISES THAT THE SAID AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE INCOME OF THE FIRM AND NOT OF THE PARTNER OR HIS WIFE. THE FACT THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE FIRM NOR ITS PARTNER OR HIS WIFE ADDUCED SATISFACTORY MATERIAL TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF THAT MONEY WOULD NOT, I N THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING MORE, LEAD TO THE INFERENCE THAT THE SAID SUM REPRESEN TS THE INCOME OF FIRM ACCRUING FROM UNDISCLOSED SALE TRANSACTIONS. 8. AS FAR LEARNED CIT(A)S RELIANCE ON HONBLE ALLH ABAD HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF JAGMOHAN RAM RAMCHANDRA VS. CIT( (274 ITR 405), IT WAS A CASE IN WHICH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE FIRM WAS THAT THESE TWO PERSONS HAVE SURRENDERED THE AFORESAID AMOUNTS IN T HEIR INDIVIDUAL RETURNS AND THAT THEY WERE ASSESSED ON THE SAME. THE AMOUNT WA S THUS ALL ALONG UNEXPLAINED AND THE QUESTION WAS CONFINED AS TO IN WHOSE HANDS COULD IT BE I.T.A. NO. 90/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PAGE 6 OF 9 TAXED. IN OTHER WORDS, LACK OF BONAFIDES OF THE AMO UNTS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE PARTNERS WAS ALL ALONG AN ACCEPTE D POSITION. THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE MONEY FROM THE PARTNER, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT EXISTENCE OF THE PARTNER, HIS ASSESSM ENT DETAILS ARE ON RECORD AND THE EXPLANATION IS REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT INCO ME RETURNED BY THE PARTNER IS NOT ADEQUATE, THOUGH SO STATED IN VERY VAGUE TERMS, TO JUSTIFY THIS ADDITION. IT IS IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THE FACT THAT THE REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SHRI M S MALHOTRA, VIDE RE PORT DATED 26 TH MARCH 2012 HAD SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS: SHRI M S MALHOTRA (DATE OF BIRTH 23/07/1952), WHO IS A PARTNER IN UTKAL HIGHWAYS (FIRM) IS ASSESSED TO TAX IN THIS CI RCLE. DETAILS OF HIS INCOME, RECEIVABLES/ RECEIPTS FROM THE FIRM ARE AS UNDER: AY FY TOTAL HOUSE TRUCK SALARY F ROM INTEREST SHARE WITHDRAWAL INCOME PROPERTY PLYING THE FIRM ON CAP PROFIT FROM FIRM 05-06 06-07 3,60,640 28,000 1,29,500 72,000 87,834 1,06,234 NIL 06-07 05-06 3,76,090 NIL --- NIL 1,63,679 1,34,382 NIL 07-08 06-07 2,70,300 NIL --- 72,000 NIL 1,08,6 63 NIL THOUGH MUCH INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE IND IVIDUAL RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, DETAILS, AS AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDERS OF THE FIRM, SUGGEST THAT SRI SINGH HAD NO SUFFICIE NT DISCLOSED INCOME WHICH CAN BE REASONABLY EXPLAINED AS THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN M/ BALAJI ASSOCIATES TO THE TUNE OF RS 8,50,000 IN FY 2006-07 9. CLEARLY, THERE WAS NOTHING AT ALL TO SUGGEST THA T THE AMOUNT SO INVESTED IN THE NAME OF SRI M S MALHOTRA CONSISTED OF OWN FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. ON THE CONTRARY, IF AT ALL THIS REPORT INDICATED ANYTHING, IT INDICATED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS INVESTED OUT OF FUNDS NOT DISCLOSED BY SRI M S MALHOTRA, BUT THEN, EVEN GOING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS COMMENTS, THERE WA S INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION AVAILABLE EVEN TO COME TO THIS CONCLUSION. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EVEN SUGGEST THAT THE MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE NAME OF THE PARTNER I.T.A. NO. 90/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PAGE 7 OF 9 REPRESENTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM . NOTHING PREVENTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM ASCERTAINING FACTS FROM THE PARTNER CONCERNED BUT THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS, INSTEAD OF FOLLOWING THA T COURSE OF ACTION, SIMPLY ADDED THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT BY SRI M S MALHOTRA AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE FIRM. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE SRI M S MA LHOTRA DID NOT EXIST OR THAT SRI M S MALHOTRA DISOWNED HAVING INVESTED THIS MONEY IN T HE FIRM. IN SUCH A SITUATION, IN THE LIGHT OF LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBLE PUNJAB & H ARYANA HIGH COURT, ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNER RATHER T HAN THE FIRM. WE MAY ALSO ADD THAT HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF JAGMOHAN RAM (SUPRA) WAS DULY TAKEN NOTE OF BY HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. METAL & METALS OF INDIA (208 CTR 45 7) AND THEIR LORDSHIPS YET HELD THAT ADDITION CAN ONLY BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNER. IN HOLDING SO, THEIR LORDSHIPS REASONED AS FOLLOWS :- 4. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE RELIES UPON THE JUDGME NT OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN JAGMOHAN RAM RAM CHANDRA VS. CIT (2005) 193 CT R (ALL) 153 : (2005) 274 ITR 405 (ALL), WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IF THE FIR M FAILS TO GIVE EXPLANATION REGARDING SOURCE OF DEPOSIT, THE FIRM WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED. 5. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FIRM HAS GIVEN EXPLANATION AB OUT THE SOURCE NAMELY SURESH BHANDARI, PARTNER, WHO HIMSELF IS AN ASSESSEE. THE SAID PARTNER HAS ADMITTED HAVING MADE DEPOSIT WITH THE FIRM. THUS, AS FAR AS THE FIRM I S CONCERNED, EVEN IF THE GIFT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY SURESH BHANDARI IS TO BE REJECTED, THE SAID SURESH BHANDARI MAY BE LIABLE TO BE TAXED BY TREATING THE SA ID AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME, BUT THE FIRM CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO TAX ON T HAT GROUND. THUS, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. 9. IN ANY EVIDENT, AS IS THE SETTLED POSITION OF LA W, IN CASE OF CONFLICTING VIEWS BY HONBLE NON-JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS, AN D IN THE ABSENCE OF GUIDANCE I.T.A. NO. 90/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PAGE 8 OF 9 OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, AS AT BEST TH E SITUATION BEFORE US COULD BE FROM REVENUES PERSPECTIVE COULD BE, THE VIEWS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADOPTED. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, WE F IND SUPPORT FROM A CO- ORDINATE BENCHS DECISION IN THE CASE OF TEJ INTER NATIONAL PVT. LTD. VS. ITO (69 TTJ 650). IN ANY EVENT, EVEN THE HONBLE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS METACHEM INDUSTRIES ( 245 ITR 160) AND DEALI NG WITH A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR SITUATION HAS OBSERVED THAT, ONCE IT IS ESTABLISH ED THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN INVESTED BY A PARTICULAR PERSON, BE HE A PARTNER OR AN INDIVIDUAL, THEN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IS OVER. THE AS SESSEE-FIRM CANNOT ASK THAT PERSON WHO MAKES INVESTMENT WHETHER THE MONEY INVES TED IS PROPERLY TAXED OR NOT. THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY TO EXPLAIN THAT THIS INVE STMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL AND IT IS RESPONSIBILITY OF T HAT INDIVIDUAL TO ACCOUNT FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM. THIS DECISION ALSO SUPPOR TS THE STAND CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE CLEAR LY IN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.8,50,000/-, IN RESPECT OF CONTRIBUTI ON BY THE PARTNER, COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. WE, THEREFORE, DIREC T THE AO TO DELETE THE SAME. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS I NDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 27 TH MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- I C SUDHIR PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: THE 27 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015 *AKS/- I.T.A. NO. 90/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PAGE 9 OF 9 COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR