9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. For The Petitioner : Darshan R Patel(8486) For The Respondent : Mr. Varun K.Patel(3802) And Mrs Mauna M Bhatt(174) ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Petitioner has challenged a notice dated 31.03.2017 issued by the respondent no.2Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle 3(3)), Ahmedabad, seeking to reopen the petitioner's assessment for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. Brief facts are as under. 3. Petitioner is an individual and is partner of various firms, which firms are engaged in the activity of development of real estate and construction. For the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee had filed the return of income on 31.03.2011 declaring total income of ₹ 14,33 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shown only ₹ 5,11,243/as profit from the firm M/s. Satyam Associates for F.Y. 200910 (A.Y. 2010-11) and did not claimed exemption u/s. 10(2A) of the Act as the same was not taxed in the hands of the firm and has thus was required to be added as income of ₹ 20,88,785/( ₹ 26,00,028 ₹ 5,11,243). 3. It is also noticed that the assessee individual has earned income by way of his share in the total income of the firm M/s. Satyam Gokul Corp. amounting to ₹ 7,65,85,994/which is exempt u/s.10(2A) of the Act. However, the expenses in relation to the exempt income were not disallowed in terms of the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Incometax Rules. The amount required to be disallowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. Impugned notice is therefore bad in law. (ii) The Assessing Officer has proceeded on erroneous factual premises to form a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. (iii) In the present case, two separate and independent notices for reopening came to be issued. Initially, the assessee was served with a notice through Email. The department however has abandoned such notice and now is relying on the impugned notice. No reasons were recorded before issuance of the electronic notice. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue supported the action of the department contending that the Assessing Officer has recorded proper reasons befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Profit from M/s. Satyam Gokul Corporation (Ahmedabad ) Rs.3,17,86,000.00 ii) Profit from M/s. Satyam Gokul Corporation Rs.4,47,99,993.37 TOTAL (Rs.) Rs.7,65,85,993.37 The Assessing Officer however, did not accept this objection. 10. The petitioner has also produced necessary matching documents to make good this contention. We notice that in the return that the petitioner filed, he is shown to have received a total amount of ₹ 7.65 crores by way of share of the profit from firm Satyam Gokul Corporation, Ahmedabad. Thus, in this return, he had not given the breakup of the receipt from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from Satyam Gokul Corporation is not correct. In fact, his assumption that assessee should have received 6.40 crores being 20% of the profit of ₹ 32 crores of Satyam Gokul Corporation itself was erroneous. All in all, the assessee correctly points out that he had received a total of ₹ 7.65 crores by way of share of profit from two separate partnership firms. 14. Coming to the second reason, the Assessing Officer believed that the assessee had received ₹ 26 lakhs (rounded off) by way of his share of profit from M/s.Satva Associates. He had instead shown only a sum of ₹ 5.11 lakhs for the current year. Therefore, the difference i.e. ₹ 20.88 lakhs was required to be added. As against this, the assessee pointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
