9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 284 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - capital contribution by the 10 partners in the assessee firm - HELD THAT - Since the assessee had furnished details of all the 10 partners and all the 10 partners were available before the tax authorities, then, in that case, addition if any, could have been made in the hands of the individual partners who had contributed capital in the assessee firm, and not in the hands of the assessee firm. Accordingly, the assessment order, in so far as the issue of capital contribution is held not to be erroneous as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Decided in favour of assessee. Claiming deduction u/s 35AD in terms of 80-IA(7) - HELD THAT - In the present case, admittedly, no separate form was filed by the assessee under the Income Tax Rules. On going through the case records it is observed that no specific query regarding claim of deduction u/s 35AD was raised by the AO, during the course of assessment proceedings. In our considered view, looking at the relevant provisions reproduced above, the assessee in order to claim deduction u/s 35AD of the Act is required under law to furnish requisite form, duly certified by Chartered Accountant in terms of Section 80-IA(7) of the Act. The issue is also not whether it is mandatory or merely procedural to file such requisite form as envisaged u/s 80-IA(7) of the Act but it is a fact that no specific query was made by the AO with respect to his specific issue in hand before us. The assessee has claimed substantial amount of deduction u/s 35AD of the Act and the AO did not enquire into the aspect of whether the assessee had furnished the requisite form as required for claim of such deduction u/s 35AD of the Act. Accordingly, on this issue we are of the considered view that the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in not conducting the requisite enquiry and we hold that Ld. CIT(A) has not erred in facts and in law in holding that the assessment order is erroneous, in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue so far as this issue is concerned. Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Revision of assessment order under Section 263 concerning the examination of the capital introduced by partners. 2. Revision of assessment order under Section 263 concerning the claim of deduction under Section 35AD of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis of the Judgment: Issue 1: Revision of Assessment Order Under Section 263 Concerning the Examination of the Capital Introduced by Partners Facts and Arguments: - The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) revised the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) on the grounds that the AO failed to examine the details of the capital introduced by the partners. - The assessee argued that the AO's order could not be considered erroneous because the details of the partners who introduced the capital were provided. According to the assessee, if any addition was to be made, it should be in the hands of the individual partners and not the partnership firm. Legal Precedents: - The Tribunal referred to the case of Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex (96 taxmann.com 469), where it was held that if the details of the partners who introduced the capital are provided, any addition should be made in the hands of the partners and not the firm. - Similarly, in Bhagwat Prasad Sharma (38 taxmann.com 102), it was held that the addition could not be made in the hands of the firm if the capital introduced by the partner is established. - In Nova Medicare (150 taxmann.com 363), it was held that the firm is not required to explain the source of income of the partners regarding the capital contribution. Tribunal's Decision: - The Tribunal concluded that since the assessee had furnished the details of all the partners and the partners were available before the tax authorities, any addition should be made in the hands of the individual partners and not the firm. - Therefore, the assessment order was held not to be erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue concerning the capital contribution by partners. - This ground of appeal raised by the assessee was allowed. Issue 2: Revision of Assessment Order Under Section 263 Concerning the Claim of Deduction Under Section 35AD Facts and Arguments: - The PCIT observed that the assessee firm claimed a deduction under Section 35AD of Rs. 7,75,12,899 but did not file the required audit report in Form No. 10CCB. - The assessee argued that there is no specific requirement for filing Form 10CCB for claiming deduction under Section 35AD, as per the Income Tax Rules. Legal Provisions: - Section 35AD(7) states that the provisions of Section 80-IA(7) apply to Section 35AD, which requires the accounts to be audited, and the audit report to be furnished in the prescribed form. - Section 80-IA(7) mandates that the audit report should be in the prescribed form and submitted by the specified date. Tribunal's Decision: - The Tribunal noted that the requisite form for claiming deduction under Section 35AD was not filed, and no specific query regarding this was raised by the AO during the assessment proceedings. - The Tribunal held that the AO erred in not conducting the requisite enquiry and upheld the PCIT's decision that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue concerning this issue. - This ground of appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Conclusion: For the case of Jaybhole Cold Storage: - The appeal regarding the revision of the assessment order for the examination of the capital introduced by partners was allowed. - The appeal regarding the revision of the assessment order for the claim of deduction under Section 35AD was dismissed. For the case of Shreeji Cold Storage: - The issues involved were similar to Jaybhole Cold Storage, and the appeal was similarly dismissed regarding the claim of deduction under Section 35AD. Final Order: - The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.
|
