9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary for assessment fully and truly as required by the first Proviso to Section 147 of the Act. Whether assessee should be considered as “working partner” within the meaning of Explanation 4 to Section 40(b)? - Held that:- The working partner should be an individual actively engaged in conducting the affairs of the business or process of the firm of which he is a partner, meaning thereby, the individual should be a partner of the firm. In the instant case, the assessee is not a partner of the firm M/s Go Go international. He is only representing the actual partner. Accordingly, we are of the view that the AO was justified in holding that the assessee cannot be considered as working partner of M/s Go Go international. Even otherwise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e loss declared in the return of income. Hence, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice on 26.3.2009 to the assessee. 4. In the reopened assessment proceedings, the assessee contended that he is a representative of M/s Sham Sunder Goenka Trust and the said trust was a partner in the partnership firm named M/s Go Go International. It was further submitted that due date for filing of return of income, in case of working partner of a firm whose accounts are required to be audited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force is 31st October, 2003 and the same was extended to 30.11.2003 for assessment year 2003-04. It was further submitted that the other partner of M/s Go Go International was a Private Limited Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of assessment, as required under the first Proviso to Section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee contended that the reopening is bad in law. The ld.CIT(A) was convinced with the said contentions and accordingly he annulled the assessment order. Aggrieved, the Revenue has filed this appeal before us. 6. We heard the parties and perused the record. We notice that the ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by following the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act which reads as under: Income escaping assessment. 147. If the [Assessing] Officer [has reason to believe] that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce he has held that the reopening of assessment is not valid in law. However, a careful perusal of the return of income filed by the assessee would show that the assessee has declared income from capital gains and income from other sources. In the return of income it is nowhere mentioned that the assessee is a partner in the firm M/s Go Go International either in his individual capacity or as representative of M/s Sham Sunder Goenka Trust. Further, it is no where mentioned that the due date for filing return of income for the year under consideration was 30-11-2003 as per the extended time limit. Hence, in our view, it cannot be said that the assessee has disclosed all the material facts necessary for assessment fully and truly as required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
