9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot acceptable. This has clearly led to double taxation as the following income is included in revenue of the firm and this disallowance WILL LEAD TO DOUBLE TAXATION AND HENCE thus his aforesaid conclusion is unjustified, excessive, arbitrary, erroneous and bad in law. These income are detailed below : a. An interest income derived from the deposits made from the funds sourced from the firm were rightly added to the firm income and offered to tax as a matter of practice and precedence. The learned CIT has erred in confirming the improper addition made by the Learned ITO of Rs. 12,93,062 as interest income although the same was included in the income of the Firm source of the funds being taken from the Firm. This clearly led to double taxa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontract receipts of the firm. The assessee did not furnish any evidence for the said claims and, therefore, the explanation of the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing officer. 5. Before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the assessee is an AClass Engineer Contractor and is a partner in the firm M/s. Jagannath Choudhury. The interest added by the Assessing Officer and the contract receipts considered in the hands of the appellant are already offered to tax in the hands of the firm M/s. Jagannath Choudhury and, therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer amounts double addition. It was further stated that as per the agreement between the firm M/s. Jag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the partner Arun Kumar Choudhury(HUF) which requires the latter to pool the business or transfer the business to the firm M/s. Jagannath Choudhury, hence there is no restraint on the assessee in carrying out independent business outside the business of the firm M/s. Jagannath Choudhury. 7. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and also the remand report has held that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings as well as during the course of appeal hearing submitted that that the assessee is a partner in the firm M/s. Jagannath Choudhury is false and misleading as has been found by the Assessing Officer in the remand report. The assessee is not under contractual obligation to transfer any business to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as observed by the Assessing Officer in his remand report dated 8.10.2013 submitted to the CIT(A) that as per the re-constituted partnership deed, Arun Kumar Choudhury(HUF) is a partner and the assessee is not a partner in the firm M/s. Jagannath Choudhury and, therefore, the assessee is not contractually bound to include or transfer the contract business solicited or acquired by him to the firm M/s. Jagannath Choudhury, ld A.R. of the assessee conceded to this fact. Further, no specific error or mistake in the findings of the CIT(A) could be pointed out by ld A.R. of the assessee. Therefore, I am of the considered view that no interference with the order of the CIT(A) is called for and ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 10. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
