9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27.11.2003 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,82,509/-, besides declaring Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) of Rs. 31,34,908/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act accepting the return filed by the assessee. According to the AO, the LTCL declared by the assessee was allowed to be carried forward. Subsequently, the AO noticed that the assessee has filed the return of income belatedly on 27.11.2003 as against the due date of 31.7.2003 (3.10.2003 as per the order of extension) for assessment year 2003-04. Hence, as per the provisions of section 80 of the Act, the assessee was not entitled to carry forward the loss declared in the return of income. Hence, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice on 26.3.2009 to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Goenka Trust and he is not a partner in the firm M/s Go Go International in his individual capacity. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has filed the return of income beyond the stipulated time limit and hence he is not entitled to carry forward LTCL of Rs. 31,34,908/- in the subsequent year. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee took new contention by stating that the assessment has been reopened after expiry of four years from the end of assessment year without pointing out that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts relevant to the completion of assessment, as required under the first Proviso to Section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee contended that the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year." In the instant case, the original assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the assessment has been reopened after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Hence the first proviso to sec. 147 is applicable to the instant case. According to the ld. CIT(A), there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the material facts fully and truly necessary for completion of assessment and hence he has held that the reopening of assessment is not valid in law. However, a careful perusal of the return of income filed by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in conducting the affairs of the business or process of the firm of which he is a partner, meaning thereby, the individual should be a partner of the firm. In the instant case, the assessee is not a partner of the firm M/s Go Go international. He is only representing the actual partner. Accordingly, we are of the view that the AO was justified in holding that the assessee cannot be considered as working partner of M/s Go Go international. Even otherwise, the assessee has nowhere said that the accounts of M/s Go Go International is required to be audited under the provisions of the Act or under any other law, though the same is no relevant here. 8. In view of the above, we are unable to agree with the view expressed by Ld CIT(A) and accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
