9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/2011, pertaining to the Assessment year 2005-06. 3. The appellant-assessee in ITA No.189/2010 and the appellant-assessee in ITA No.814/2011 are husband and wife. The facts, against which the orders are passed by the Authorities below including the Tribunal are common and hence, these appeals are being disposed of by the common order. 4. The appellant in ITA No.404/2013 has formulated the following questions as substantial questions of law:- (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the partnership firm was not genuine and did not exist is perverse? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perties as their capital contribution in the firm. The firm had three partners namely, the assessees and M/s.L.K.Trust and they had profit and loss sharing ratio of 3% for the assessees and 97% for the Trust. There does not appear to be any dispute that after execution of the partnership firm, the firm did not carry on any construction/development activity till the retirement-cum-reconstitution of the firm deed was executed on 22.05.2004. On execution of the deed of retirement, the assessees were paid Rs.2.85 crores and Rs.2.9 crores respectively, by the firm. 6. In the course of regular assessment of the assessee-husband in ITA No.404/13, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee-wife had also received a sum of Rs.2.9 crores during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e firm. We do not find any reason to interfere with these findings of fact recorded by the authorities below. The first two questions framed by the assessees in the memorandum of appeals, in our opinion, do not arise for our consideration those being not substantial questions of law. 8. Insofar as the third question of law, which is raised by the assessee-wife in ITA No.405/2013 is concerned, that also, in our opinion, does not arise for our consideration. It has come on record that the assessee-wife had declared her total income of Rs.1,37,990/- for the assessment year 2005-06 and it was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer received information from his counter part in ward No.3(2), Bangalore, to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
