Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 652 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURTReopening of assessment u/s 147 - benefit under Section 80-IC - reopening on one reason and assessment on different reasons - HELD THAT:- No reassessment order has been passed on any of the ground and therefore we do not have a situation on which the above law can be made applicable. All which is presently done is notice u/s 147/148 and thereafter the reasons have been fully assigned by the Revenue as to why reassessment is being done. It is not a case of change of opinion but discovery of new material which is the basis of reassessment proceedings. Moreover, in any case it is not a case where the Revenue has assigned “A” reason and then again reason “B” as well. The reason for the reassessment is that correct books of account have not been shown to the Revenue and that manufacturing activity was not being done at Haridwar as claimed. This appears to be the only reason. This reason has still to be tested. Even for the assessment year 2005-06 a separate notice has been sent after the survey. Whether firm to whom notice was issued is same or different entity - As regarding the first argument of the petitioner that the reassessment in fact is of a different entity, this too is not liable to be accepted, inter alia, for the reasons that it still remains a family firm. Initially the father, mother and two sons were the partners and now all what has happened by the reconstitution of the firm is that it remains a firm of father and two sons. Practically it is the same firm, and in any case the present partners cannot escape the liability. From the records presently before this Court also, it is very clear that the dominant partners of the firm continue to be the same. To that extent, there has been no change in the firm, particularly as to the control of the affairs of the firm. The father i.e. Jitendra Kumar Gupta had 10% share of the firm, whereas the remaining 90% share was divided equally between the two sons i.e. Aditya Kumar Gupta and Ashish Kumar Gupta having 45% share each. Thereafter when in the year 2005, the mother was also included as a partner, the sons continued to retain their share and only the share of Jitendra Kumar Gupta was now divided between him and his wife. In the newly constructed firm in the year 2009, although the share of the partners is not stated in the writ petition, but the fact is clear that all the earlier three partners i.e. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Aditya Kumar Gupta and Ashish Kumar Gupta continue to be dominant partners of the firm. In any case, this argument is always available for the petitioner, which can be taken before the assessing authority, which shall not be prejudiced by any remarks in this regard. Petitioner has also submitted that the assessment is being carried out for the new firm for assessment year 2010-11 onwards, in accordance with law. However, this is the matter to be decided again by the assessment authority and nothing can be said on this aspect.
|