Held that when the deposit of amount in partner’s capital account is explained the addition cannot be made as undisclosed source. Relied on CIT v. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) (HC) and ITO v. Mahar Singh Sadhu Singh (2002) 253 ITR 471 (P&H) (HC). Tribunal also held that when the cash deposited in the bank account of concern was accepted as genuine the assessee received the payment by banking channels. Addition cannot be made as undisclosed income of the firm. (AY.2013-14)
ITO v. Swaran Fastners (2021) 89 ITR 650 / 210 TTJ 1 (Chad.) (Trib.)
S. 143(3) : Assessment-Income from undisclosed source-Firm-Deposit of money in partner’s capital account-Explained the source-Addition cannot be made as undisclosed income of the firm-Cash deposited in the bank account of concern was accepted as genuine-Assessee received the payment by banking channels-Addition cannot be made as undisclosed income of the firm. [S. 69]