9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from assessment. Likewise, there is no allegation of non-filing of the declaration (F-15H) by the assessee, which only could lead to a valid reason to believe disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia), not effected in the original assessment. No wonder, the ld. Sr. DR, Ms. Agarwal did not respond to the Revenue s case qua these two reasons in her arguments/ No contravention of s. 184 due to non- signing of the front pages of the partnership deed by the partners so as to attract s.185. The Revenue is only making a guess in view of the long time interval between possible date of execution (as stated in the deed itself), i.e., 1.4.2007, and the date of its notarization; rather, admitting that the matter needs to be examined and ascertained. That is, there is a reason to suspect, and not a reason to believe for want of the relevant information. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 224/JAB/2018 - - - Dated:- 22-10-2021 - SH. SANJAY ARORA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Sh. H.S. Modh Adv. Respondent by : Smt. Swati Agarwal, Sr. DR ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther, it is not necessary for the partners to sign all the pages of the partnership deed, so that nothing turns on the non-signing by them the front pages of the deed. Shri Modh, the ld. counsel for the assessee, would also quickly address the other two reasons informing the AO s reason to believe escapement of income from tax, i.e., as per the reasons recorded. One, that the return of income was filed on 28.10.2009 (correct date: 02/10/2009) as against the due date of 30.9.2008. The same does not by itself, by any stretch of imagination, lead to any valid reason to believe escapement of income from assessment. Two, interest to senior citizen at ₹ 1,87,083 was allowed in violation of section 40(a)(ia) as there was no proof of the payee being, as claimed, a senior citizen. Declaration from the depositor in Form-15H stood duly submitted to the Department on 07.4.2008, as recorded by the AO in the reassessment order. Adverting thereto, he would submit that there could thus be no reason to believe a non-disallowance of interest u/s. 40(a)(ia). 3.2 The Revenue s case is that the signing on the copy of the deed by all the partners is a pre-requisite for compliance of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are of the law impinging on the matter, the same could not be disqualified inasmuch as it is not expression of opinion by him. In the facts of the case, all that the Revenue Audit has brought forth for the consideration of the Assessing Officer are some facts, which may have a bearing on the compliance or otherwise of s.147; s. 40(a)(ia); and s.184 (leading to the consequence of s.185). That the same appealed to the AO is another matter. The reasons recorded, thus, cannot be faulted with on this score i.e., for being based on an audit objection/s. The assessee s argument, thus, fails. 4.3 Next, I may dwell on the first proviso to s.147, i.e., if the assessee had not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the relevant year. This is as even if the reason/s recorded, reproduced as under (in the relevant part), is valid, there cannot be a valid reopening unless this additional condition is also satisfied: Further, on going through the records, it is found that the photocopy of front pages of revised partnership deed submitted does not bear the signatures of the partners which is one of the requirements of the deed as and when revised. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds no ground to entertain any reason to believe escapement of income from assessment. Likewise, there is no allegation of non-filing of the declaration (F-15H) by the assessee, which only could lead to a valid reason to believe disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia), not effected in the original assessment. No wonder, the ld. Sr. DR, Ms. Agarwal did not respond to the Revenue s case qua these two reasons in her arguments. Coming to the third and the last reason, which is subject matter of the impugned order in the main, as well as of the arguments during hearing, the same stands reproduced at para 4.3 above. It reveals two reasons, which are discussed as follows: a. The first reason recorded is as to the contravention of s. 184 due to nonsigning of the front pages of the partnership deed by the partners. A noncompliance of s.184 results in non-allowance of interest and salary to partners (s.185). The document is to be read as one whole, with pages being in continuation (PB pgs. 41-44). Therefore, the non-signing by the partners of the front pages thereof cannot be regarded as a non-compliance or contravention of s.184, so as to attract s.185. b. The second reason stated is that the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
