9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich is being received for a particular period by the other; which may not always match. Since it does not appear that there was either any failure on the part of the petitioning assessee to disclose any material on the basis of which the reassessment would be necessary or there is any discovery of new material by the assessing officer from elsewhere which could prompt the same, the notice dated March 31, 2014 issued by the assessing officer and all steps taken pursuant thereto for reassessment of the petitioning assessee’s accounts for the assessment year 2007-08 stand set aside. - WP No. 228 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 21-3-2016 - Sanjib Banerjee, J. ORDER The Court : The petitioners question the propriety of a notice dated March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioners refer to the accounts for the relevant year and, in particular, to Form No.3CD appended to the accounts for the relevant year. Under Clause 18 in Form No.3CD, the petitioning assessee disclosed the particulars of payments made to the persons specified under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The list of all relevant persons was also disclosed. It was clearly mentioned therein that P. M. Narielvala (since deceased) was an erstwhile partner of the petitioner firm and a sum of ₹ 19,20,000/- was shown to have accrued to the said erstwhile partner on account of pension. The petitioners say that since all material relevant for the purpose was disclosed in the accounts pertaining to the corresponding financial year, the assessing offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h basis, revealed the payment of only ₹ 4,80,000/- in the relevant assessment year and not the amount of ₹ 19,20,000/- as reflected in the accounts of the petitioning assessee. However, that is the precise distinction between the system of accounting on accrual basis and that on cash basis. The petitioning assessee had to provide for the entire amount due of ₹ 19,20,000/- that accrued to the retired partner irrespective of the amount actually paid upon Accounting Standard-15 coming into effect; but the concerned partner would show only the amount received of ₹ 4,80,000/-. While the figures appear to be mismatched, that is because of the different accounting systems followed by the two assessees. When the two syste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
