9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Though, the assessment in his case was completed on 28.12.2010 on protective basis. Considering the facts available on record, authorities below ought to have given clear finding regarding the terms of Partnership Deed and Supplementary Deed as furnished by the assessee. Even, Ld.CIT(A) failed to advert the submissions of the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the issue is restored to the file of AO to decide it afresh after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.5738/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2022 - Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri V.Rajakumar, Adv. For the Respondent : S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amended that the contracts will be taken over in future by party no. second to twentieth parts above, either in his own name or in joint names or in the name of firm constitute as above shall be deemed and treated as if such works have been taken for and on behalf of the firm referred above means party of the first part namely SATISH KUMAR has been detached himself from the clause number five of reconstitute deed of partnership in the supplementary deed of partnership which execute on 01.04.2007 now condition of clause number five of reconstitute deed not apply upon the assessee (Xerox copies of deed of partnership execute on 01.04.2003, reconstitute deed of partnership execute on 01.04.2007 and supplementary deed of partnership execute o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... work contract of rupees 10,07,071.00 and interest income of rupees 18,045.00 on substantive basis is baseless because one income cannot be assessed in two time when payments and TDS posted on the 26AS of SATISFI KUMAR (individual) it's the income tax department theory. 6. BECAUSE, it is therefore, requested that your honor may pleased accredited the protective assessment order that pass in the name of Sh. SATISH KUMAR (individual) and quashed the order of firm (ABAFS2676P). FACTS OF THE CASE 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, the assessment was re-opened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ the Act ]. A notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 18.02.2011 and served upon the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds of appeal Nos.1 to 6, Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the AO was not justified in making the addition on substantive basis in the hands of the assessee. He submitted that the assessee had filed a Supplementary Partnership Deed which clarified about the liability of the assessee firm. It was further submitted that the AO failed to appreciate the fact that there was no escapement of income hence, the re-opening of the assessment in the case of the assessee, is not justified. 7. Ld. Sr. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue, opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. I have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
