9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 908 - AT - Income TaxAssessment of Partnership firm v/s individual partner - Addition at the hands of the assessee on substantive basis - liability of taxes - assessee had filed a Supplementary Partnership Deed which clarified about the liability of the assessee firm - HELD THAT - As stated that the partner of the assessee firm in his individual capacity as owned up the contractual receipts as his own business receipt. The reasons for not accepting the Supplementary Partnership Deed as stated by the AO is that this Supplementary Deed was not produced during the assessment proceedings for AY 2008-09 in the case of Shri Satish Kuamr, partner of the firm. Though, the assessment in his case was completed on 28.12.2010 on protective basis. Considering the facts available on record, authorities below ought to have given clear finding regarding the terms of Partnership Deed and Supplementary Deed as furnished by the assessee. Even, Ld.CIT(A) failed to advert the submissions of the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the issue is restored to the file of AO to decide it afresh after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
1. Assessment based on re-opening u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Addition of income on substantive basis in the hands of the assessee. 3. Justification of re-opening the assessment. 4. Consideration of Partnership Deed and Supplementary Deed. 5. Failure to produce Supplementary Deed during assessment proceedings. 6. Lack of clear findings regarding Partnership Deed and Supplementary Deed. Analysis: Issue 1: Assessment based on re-opening u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The appeal was filed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessment was re-opened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The re-opening was based on discrepancies noticed during the assessment proceedings of another entity related to the assessee. The AO computed the business income and interest income of the assessee, leading to an assessment of the income. Issue 2: Addition of income on substantive basis in the hands of the assessee The AO added income on a substantive basis in the hands of the assessee, disregarding the explanations provided regarding the liability of the assessee firm. The AO did not accept the explanation provided by the assessee, resulting in the assessment of income at a certain amount. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO. Issue 3: Justification of re-opening the assessment The assessee contended that there was no escapement of income and questioned the justification of re-opening the assessment. The Ld. Counsel argued that the re-opening was not justified as the assessee had not carried out any work during the year under consideration. The Tribunal found that the re-opening of the assessment required further examination. Issue 4: Consideration of Partnership Deed and Supplementary Deed The assessee had filed a Supplementary Partnership Deed to clarify the liability of the firm. The AO did not consider this deed adequately during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that there was a lack of clear findings regarding the terms of the Partnership Deed and Supplementary Deed, which needed to be addressed by the AO. Issue 5: Failure to produce Supplementary Deed during assessment proceedings The AO raised concerns about the non-production of the Supplementary Deed during the assessment proceedings. This led to discrepancies in the assessment process, highlighting the importance of submitting all relevant documents during assessments to avoid misunderstandings and incorrect assessments. Issue 6: Lack of clear findings regarding Partnership Deed and Supplementary Deed The Tribunal observed that both the AO and the Ld.CIT(A) failed to provide clear findings regarding the terms of the Partnership Deed and Supplementary Deed submitted by the assessee. This lack of clarity necessitated a fresh examination by the AO to make a well-informed decision based on the provided documents. Overall, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the AO for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
|
