9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner, it is a Partnership Firm trading in stocks, shares, debentures, manufacturing, buying, selling and transporting of various consumer and industrial commodities. The petitioner filed its Return for Assessment Year 2012-2013 on 29.09.2012, admitting a total income of Rs. 1,74,36,050. The Reutrn of Income was processed under Sec.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and selected for scrutiny. Many details were called for and after considering the details, submitted and explanations given, the Assessment Order under Sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was passed on 30.03.2015 by the second respondent. The second respondent disallowed donations made under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the tune of Rs. 2,62,50,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctice in law. The petitionier has quantified the investment and the remuneration, to be received by each of the partners in the Annexure to the Partnership Deed dated 1.4.2011. Further, according to the petitioner, the perusal of the assessment orders of the petitioner in the previous years will show that the respondents have accepted the constitution of the firm. 6. According to the first respondent, under Sec.11(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, no Company, Association or Partnership consisting of more than twenty persons shall be formed for the purpose of carrying on any other business that has for its object the acquisition of gain by the company, assocaition or partnership or by the individual members thereof, unless it is registered as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clothed with very wide power so as to do justice to the assessee and also in the interest of the Revenue. Further, according to the first respondent, the impugned notices are well within the four corners of law and therefore are valid. 8. Ms. T.C.A. Sangeetha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of her contention, relied upon an unreported judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in W.P.(T) No.1293 of 2013 etc batch (M/s Central Coalfields Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, wherein the Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court held as follows: "13. By perusal of the above, it appears that the CIT (Appeals) has not only expressed the doubt regarding the status of the petitioner-company but also expresse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r stage of the proceeding and in the particular authority having jurisdiction in the two stages. Basically, an appeal does not differ from an assessment. Just as is the case with any other appeal under our legal system, an appeal from a sales tax assessment is only a rehearing or a retrial. In the absence of any statutory inhibitions or restrictions, an appellate authority has precisely the same powers, exercisable or in the same manner and to the same extent, as the assessing authority has, in the first instance. If this were not the position, no appellate authority can effectively function while hearing and determining an appeal from an assessment. Under the scheme of section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, appeals from Central sales tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate authority even without the concerned statutory provision expressly naming the appellate authority in that behalf. It goes without saying that an appellate authority, engaged as it is in precisely the same task under the fiscal statute as that of the assessing authority must also be possessed to like powers as those of the assessing authority. It is implicit in the very nature of the appellate jurisdiction, as well as the purposes for which that jurisdiction is created by the statute, that the appellate authority will have to function, in the very image of the assessing authority. Appellate proceedings are often truly described as an extension of the assessment proceedings, or as a continuation of the assessment proceedings. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner Company to show the status of the petitioner as a Company. When the petitioner Company therein were enjoying the status of the Company over several decades, on such circumstances, the Jharkhand High Court held that the CIT (Appeals) is not justified in raising doubt about the status of the petitioner Company and the respondent therein cannot contend that the show cause notice has been issued as only for verification exercise. 11. Since the CIT (Appeals) has expressed the doubts that the petitioner is not a Company and is seeking to reopen assessment of the petitioner company over the years, the Division Bench were of the view that the impugned show cause notices are in excess of jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed. However, the J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
