9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HELD THAT:- We note that the ITAT in the identical facts and circumstances in the case of other partners [ 2018 (5) TMI 852 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] has remanded back the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the provisions of law. Respectfully following the same, we are inclined to remand this matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the provisions of law. Hence, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Exemption under section 54B - alternate contention for allowing the of the Act as the investment in the agricultural land purchased which is more than the capital gain even if the benefit of cost of improvement is ignored - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the assessee in his computation of income has shown investment in the agricultural land which is much more than the capital gain earned by the assessee after ignoring the index cost of improvement. Accordingly, in principle we find force in the contention of the learned AR for the assessee as the investment in the agricultural land exceeds the amount of capital gain. However, this aspect has not been verified by the authorities below. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the partnership firm. Ld.CIT(A) ought to have quashed such computation contrary to the provisions of sec. 45(3) of the Act. 5. Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts confirming addition made by AO of ₹ 1,50,000/- share profit from undisclosed profits of partnership firm. Ld.CIT(A) ought to have held that once land became property of the firm from the date of partners contribution then any income subsequently earned by the firm, partner is not liable to tax on share of profit from firm. 6. Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming above addition of unaccounted profit in the hands of the appellant ignoring the fact that the said profit was already offered by the firm before settlement commission. 5. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 3 and 4 is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹ 6,46,790/- under the head capital gain. 6. At the outset the learned AR before us submitted as under: During course of survey, one annexure was impounded (Annexure A1/20) and pursuant to that statement of Shri Mahesh Shantilal Patel was recorded on 29.07.2011 u/s 131 of the Act and he admitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06-07 as contended by the learned AR. 8.1 At the time of hearing, it was pointed out by the learned AR that the assessee has settled his dispute for the assessment year 2006-07 under VSV scheme 2020. For this purpose, the learned AR has filed form 3 issued by the Income Tax Department showing the settlement of the dispute under VSV scheme 2020. 8.2 As the dispute relating to the year under consideration has been settled under VSV scheme 2020, we hold that no separate adjudication is required. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the assessee as infructuous. 9. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee in ground Nos. 5 6 is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹ 1.50 lakhs representing the share of profit from the undisclosed sources of income of the partnership firm. 10. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and deriving his income from house property, share of profit from the firm, capital gain and income from other sources. There was a search u/s 132 of the Act carried out in the case of Savvy Group, a partnership firm dated 27.04.2011 and on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... low2. The taxability of undisclosed income detected in the course of search in the case of partnership firm where the assessee is a partner is in question. We shall first take a look into the second proposition raised on behalf of the assessee. On behalf of the assessee, it is sought to be contended that the alleged undisclosed income has already been included in the taxable income of the partnership firm in the course of settlement proceedings and thus the same income cannot be taxed again in hands of the partners. We find ourselves in complete agreement, in principle, with the said proposition raised on behalf of the assessee-partner that the undisclosed income once already considered for taxation in the hands of the partnership firm cannot be taxed once again in the hands of the partner. However, in the same vein, we find that question as to whether the undisclosed income in controversy, forms part of the additional income declared before the Settlement Commission or not, is essentially a question of fact. This aspect has not been raised before the lower authorities, and thus remained unanswered. Hence, as a measure of fair-play, the issue requires to be remanded back and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly allowed for statistical purposes. 18. Coming to following appeals filed by the different assessee. Sr.No. Appeal No. A.Y Name of the assessee 1. ITA No.1371/Ahd/2016 2008-09 Smt. Bhavanben M. Patel 2. 1366/Ahd/2016 2007-08 Shri Atit Maheshbhai Patel 3. IT(SS)A No.242/Ahd/2016 2008-09 Shri Atit Maheshbhai Patel 4. ITA No.1368/Ahd/2016 2007-08 Shri Maheshbhai S. Patel 5. IT(SS)A No.244/Ahd/2016 2008-09 Shri Maheshbhai S. Patel 6. ITA No.1363/Ahd/2016 2007-08 Shri Shantilal Prabhudas Patel 19. At the outset we note that similar grounds were raised by the Assessee in ITA No.1370/Ahd/2016 (Bhavnaben M. Patel) cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omputation of income further claimed exemption under section 54B of the Act on account of investment made in another agricultural land amounting to ₹ 1,38,22,000.00. However, the AO made the observations during the assessment proceedings as detailed under: i. The assessee is not eligible for exemption under section 54B of the Act as the land in respect of which the capital gain was generated was not used for the agricultural operations either by the assessee or his parents. Accordingly, the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 54B of the Act was denied. ii. The index cost of improvement claimed by the assessee was not available to the assessee as the assessee failed to file the documentary evidence in support of his claim. 26. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who allowed the exemption to the assessee under section 54B of the Act but denied the benefit for the index cost of improvement claimed by the assessee. 27. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 28. The learned AR before us contended that the assessee has made investment in the agricultural land for an amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
