2016 (6) TMI 337

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rom these prima facie observations, we notice that it is not observed by the Assessing Officer in his reasons recorded for issuance of the notice that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose true and full material facts. In fact, in the reasons recorded itself, he himself has stated “subsequently on verification of the case record and material available on record, it is found that.”. This would clearly demonstrate that all necessary facts were already on record and it was only on the basis of the case record that Assessing Officer formed the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Thus we cannot uphold the notice for re-opening which was issued beyond period of four years without ther .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessee firm to its partners on their capital. Assessee firm consists of four partners namely 1. Shri Karsanbhai Mohanbhai Patel 2. Dipakkumar Vachhani with profit sharing ratio of 30%, 30%, 20% and 20% respectively. However, it is observed that the assessee has not provided for partners capital interest of ₹ 30,00,782/- as per section 40(b)(iv) of the Act, worked out as under, during the year under consideration thereby made more profits than reasonable profits which would have accrued to the assessee and consequently claiming higher deduction under section 108 of the Act. ₹ 2,50,06,515/- (capital) x 12% = ₹ 30,00,782/-. Failure to do so attracts the provisions of section 80IA(10) r.w.s. 10B(7) of the Ac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... view of the above facts, I have reasons to believe that the income of more than ₹ 1 lakh chargeable to tax for A.Y. 2009-10 has escaped assessment in view of section 147 of the I.T.Act. Therefore, this is a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961. 4. The assessee raised objections to the process of reopening in the communication dated 2.7.2015. Such objections were however, rejected by the Assessing Officer by order dated 27.8.2015. Hence, the petition. 5. As noted above, the original assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer after scrutiny. The notice for re-opening has been issued beyond period of four years at the end of the assessment year. It was therefore, necessary for application of S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X