9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed u/s 143(3) r/w s. 147. 2. Application of provisions of s. 150(1) and its jurisdiction. 3. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 based on Tribunal's findings. 4. Interpretation of "finding" and "direction" in the context of s. 150. Summary: 1. Validity of the order passed u/s 143(3) r/w s. 147: The appellant contended that the order passed u/s 143(3) r/w s. 147 is not tenable in law as it was passed without resuming proper jurisdiction considering the provisions of sub-s. (1) of s. 150. The appellant argued that the AO erred in applying the provisions of s. 150(1) as the subject matter before the Tribunal was the firm and not the partner, relying on the case law ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das (1964) 52 ITR 335 (SC). 2. Application of provisions of s. 150(1) and its jurisdiction: The Tribunal had previously deleted the addition of Rs. 1,93,000 in the hands of the firm, stating that the credit amount standing in the names of partners was actually brought in by them. Consequently, the AO applied s. 150(1) to add the said sum in the hands of the appellant, a partner, since it was deleted from the hands of the firm. The appellant argued that s. 150 does not prescribe giving effect to an appellate order pertaining to another assessee and that the Tribunal's observations should not be taken into account for the appellant. 3. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 based on Tribunal's findings: The AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 after the Tribunal deleted the addition from the firm's hands. The appellant objected, stating that the Tribunal's decision pertained to the firm and not the partners, and that the notice was issued beyond the time limit. The AO, however, applied s. 150(1) to give effect to the appellate order, adding the sum concerning the appellant. 4. Interpretation of "finding" and "direction" in the context of s. 150: The Tribunal examined the language of s. 150 and related sections, concluding that the AO had jurisdiction to issue a notice u/s 148 to assess the impugned capital under s. 68 of the Act in the hands of the partner. The Tribunal referred to Explanation 3 to s. 153(3) and relevant case laws, including CIT vs. Metachem Industries and Lotus Investments Ltd., to interpret the terms "finding" and "direction." It was held that the AO's action was justified as the partner's assessment was intimately connected with the firm's assessment. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the AO's view that the reopening of the assessment and the addition of the impugned amount in the hands of the partner were valid and in accordance with the law. The grounds raised by the appellant were dismissed, and the appeal was rejected.
|
