Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 106 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Change of opinion - HELD THAT:- AO has no power to review an assessment which has been concluded unless he has tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is an escapement of income from assessment. But in the reasons to believe in the present case, we do not find even a single ground which can be considered to be tangible basis for re-opening the assessment. AO states that from the partnership deed, audited accounts and Form No.3CD report, it is seen that that the Assessee has 15 partners, one of whom is Dhansukh Nanda HUF. According to the Assessing an HUF cannot become a partner of a firm or enter into a contract with other person and hence the Assessee has not complied with the provisions of Section 184 of the Act and the interest paid to partners cannot be considered for deduction. This is a clear case of change of opinion because Petitioner had filed Form No.3CD in which Dhansukh Nanda HUF is shown as a partner with 10% profit sharing ratio. Form No.3CD also indicates that a sum has been paid as interest to Dhansukh Nanda HUF. These materials were on the face of a document available before the Assessing Officer who passed the original Assessing Order dated 21/10/2015. Mr. Walve states that in the original Assessment Order, there is no mention about Dhansukh Nanda HUF and therefore it is likely that the original Assessing Officer has failed to note that one of the partners in Petitioner firm was an HUF. We do not agree with Mr. Walve because if Assessment Order does not speak about this, we would consider it as having been accepted by the Assessing Officer who passed the original Assessment Order that it was perfectly okay for an HUF to be a partner in Petitioner firm. We would hasten to add that we are not for a moment opining whether an HUF can be a partner in a firm under the provisions of Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Since we have concluded that it is nothing but a change of opinion, we do not propose to go into the issue as to whether the stand of Respondent that Petitioner has not complied with provisions of Section 184 of the Act is correct. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|