Itl/87/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv, Nagpur v. M/S Aditya Constructions, Nagpur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 87/2009. Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Nagpur.VERSUSM/s. Aditya Constructions, Nagpur _____________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders of directionsand Registrar's Orders. Court's or Judge's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI& A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ DATED : JUNE 28, 2013. Heard Shri Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for the appellant- Department and Shri K.P. Dewani, learned Counsel for respondent- Assessee Firm. The matter was considered on 21.06.2013 and was adjourned to today. The I.T.A.T. has found that the burden to prove that funds with the Firm was an un-explained income, shifted to department. For said purpose, it has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported at (1952) 22 ITR 18 (Bom) (Narayandas Kedarnath .vrs. Commissioner of IncomeTax),and also judgments delivered by some other Courts. Shri Parchure, learned Counsel after inviting our attention to the said judgment, has taken us through the assessment order dated 20.12.2006, to show that the partners could not prove the source of funds with them. He has urged that mere production of 7/12 extracts is not sufficient to show that the partners had agricultural income. Learned Counsel submits that the un-explained funds with the partners therefore, represented the profits of the firm. Shri Dewani, learned Counsel has submitted that this Court is concerned with the assessment of the Firm and the case of partners is not before this Court. He therefore, relies upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court (supra), to urge that even if it is presumed that the partners have procured some funds through dishonest means, this is not sufficient to fasten the liability upon the Firm. Perusal of the assessment order dated 20.12.2006 does not show any material to enable one to conclude that the assessee Firm had any un-disclosed funds or income. The said aspect has been rightly looked into by the I.T.A.T. and the law has also been correctly applied. No substantial questions of law therefore, arise in the appeal. The same is thus, rejected. No cost. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd