TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al in the case of Shri Labdhi Prints (2012 (5) TMI 635 - ITAT AHMEDABAD) after considering the various decisions cited before it and referred to in the order had agreed with the decision of ld. CIT(A) that once the additional income offered for taxation during the survey is accepted and it has been explained to be as business income as the source then there is no bar in the Act for claiming partners remuneration from such additional business income. Before us, Revenue has not controverted the findings of ld. CIT(A) nor has brought on record any contrary binding decision. We further find that Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Md. Serajuddin & Brothers vs. CIT reported in (2012 (8) TMI 104 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ) has held that even i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-IV, Surat has erred in deleting the addition on account of remuneration to the partners of ₹ 13,94,516/- made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Assessee had also filed C.O and the grounds raised in its C.O. reads as under:- 1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of ld. A.O in reopening the assessment year under consideration which is bad in law and without jurisdiction on following amongst other grounds: (i) It is based on audit objection; (ii) There is no proof of valid service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act on record; (iii) There is no failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing fully and truly all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eduction u/s. 40(b). There was a survey in the case of the assessee when a voluntary disclosure of ₹ 35,00,000/- was made. This income was stated to be the undisclosed income from the project during the year. It was shown in the P L account prepared for the year. It was argued that the income so offered was from the construction business of the firm, which was the only business of the assessee and that it has been noted in the original order u/s. 143(3) that the assessee had disclosed income of ₹ 35,00,000/- in respect of unaccounted income from construction activity and therefore this income was from business and also formed part of the book profits, hence eligible for computation u/s. 40(b). The A.O. did not accept the explana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccording to him the source of this income was not established to be business. This conclusion of the A.O., I am afraid, cannot be upheld. The assessee had only one source of income, i.e. construction activity from the project. In the statement recorded, it was categorically mentioned that the income was from construction project. This was shown in the P L account of the firm and offered for tax. It would be unfair to accept that part of the statement which relates to income and reject that part which mentions the source of this income. The statement has to be read in totality and not selectively. Further, it has not been shown by the A.O. that any other source of income existed for the appellant. Therefore having accepted the quantum of inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s account of the firm and was offered to tax and the quantum of income disclosed has been accepted by Revenue. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Labdhi Prints (supra) after considering the various decisions cited before it and referred to in the order had agreed with the decision of ld. CIT(A) that once the additional income offered for taxation during the survey is accepted and it has been explained to be as business income as the source then there is no bar in the Act for claiming partners remuneration from such additional business income. Before us, Revenue has not controverted the findings of ld. CIT(A) nor has brought on record any contrary binding decision. We further find that Hon ble Calcutta High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
