Income Tax

Capital introduced by partner can not be taxed in firms hand as undisclosed income

Capital introduced by partner can not be taxed in firms hand as undisclosed income. It could be added in the hands of partners only – ITAT

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2866 (2019) (04) ITAT

Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties
India Rice Mills vs. CIT reported in 218 ITR 508

The assessee was a partnership firm. The firm had challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of capital introduced by the one of the partner of the firm.

It was the case of the assessee that the capital introduced by any of the partners has to be taxed in the hands of the partner and not in the hands of the firm. It was submitted that the Hon’ble High Court had held so and various Benches of the Tribunal are also taking this consistent view that addition.

The Tribunal observed that it had been held in various decisions that when any partner invests or contributes in capital to the partnership firm, it is the partner who has to explain the source of such contribution and addition, if any, can be made in the hands of the partner only u/s 68 or 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and no addition can be made in the hands of the firm.

The Tribunal noted that the Hon’ble High Court while dealing with an identical case had held that it is for the partners to explain the source of the deposits and if they fail to discharge the onus, then, such deposits could be added in the hands of the partners only.

Following the decision the Tribunal opined that no addition in the hands of the firm could have been made and addition, if any, can be made only in the hands of the partner who has contributed such capital.

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the ground raised by the assessee on this issue was allowed.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Non-deduction of TDS does not make transaction as unexplained in the hands of deductee – ITAT

Mere non-deduction of TDS by the deductor on a transaction does not change the character of the transaction to make…

2 days ago
  • ICAI

Last date to submit MEF 2026-27 extended to 09.09.2026

ICAI has extended the last date to online submit Multipurpose Empanelment Form (MEF)- 2026-27 from 29th August 2026 to 9th…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Validity of demand u/s 156 for default u/s 115-O, if assessment order u/s 143(3) has Nil demand

Can a demand notice be issued u/s 156 for non-payment of Dividend tax u/s 115-O, when as per assessment order…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Issue already examined and adjudicated by CIT(Appeals), can’t be reopened on same set of facts

The issue already examined and adjudicated by the quasi-judicial authority, i.e., CIT(Appeals), cannot be reopened on the same set of…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

TDS can’t be denied for non deposit of tax deducted by the deductor – High Court

One TDS is deducted, credit has to follow, failure of deductor to deposit the amount to the credit of the…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cash withdrawal from bank can’t be taxed u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure – ITAT

Merely because assessee did not explain purpose of cash withdrawal from bank, it can not be taxed u/s 69C as…

6 days ago