TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng before us, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the facts in all these years are almost similar and therefore they would refer to the case relating to the assessment year 2000- 2001 i.e. ITA No.3613/Ahd/2007. Copy of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment of the assessee is placed at page no.2 of the assessee s paperbook. From which it is evident that the Assessing Officer has mentioned that the return of income was not filed by the assessee-firm. He has also recorded a finding that there is an escapement of income on account of investment in the unsold shops, flats and open land for assessment year 2001-2002. The learned counsel has stated that the assessee had filed the return of income on 31-3- 2002. Copy of ackno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, Madanwad, Valsad. Reg: M/s.Triloknath Corporation Triloknath Complex, Madanwad, Valsad A.Y.2000-01 This is a partnership firm engaged in construction business. There are two partners viz. Shri Tarun K. Mody and Shri Shivpal J. Mistry having 50% share ach as per the partnership deed. They have constructed 18 flats and 10 shops in Triloknath complex in a land purchased as per the purchase deed. Return of Income was not filed by the firm although there are number of unsold shops and open land. Survey action u/s.133A of the I.T.Act was carried out in the business premises of one of the partners Shri Tarun Mody at Ganesh Hall, Halar, Valsad on 3.1.2006. During the course of the survey proceedings statement u/s.133A/1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment of A.Y.2000- 2001 under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the notice issued for reopening of the assessment under Section 148 for A.Y.2000-2001 is quashed and consequential assessment order for A.Y.2000-2001 passed in pursuance to notice u/s.148 is also quashed. 5. In other grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. However, once we have cancelled the impugned assessment order, this ground does not survive for any adjudication. 6. The facts for the assessment year 2002-2003 are identical. For this year also, the assessee had filed return of income on 31-3-2003, but the Assessing Officer i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t which is not chargeable to income-tax; In the case of the assessee, the above Explanation would be squarely applicable because the assessee did not furnish the return of income for the year under consideration and the assessee is carrying on the business of development of real estate. The assessee is a partnership firm and in the case of the partnership firm, the exemption limit is nil . In view of the above, in our opinion, the issue of notice under Section 148 for the assessment year 2003-2004 was fully justified, we uphold the same and reject the ground nos.1 and 2 of the assessee s appeal. 8. Ground No.3 of the assessee s appeal reads as under: Ld.AO has erred in law and on facts to disallow 20% of general expenses, main ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
