TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the discrepancy in the bank account of the major partner or any other amount received by the major partner and deposited in his bank account would be treated as an income of the assessee-firm - - - - - Dated:- 20-9-2006 - Judge(s) : D. BISWAS., SMT. A. HAZARIKA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by D. BISWAS J.-This appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated May 27, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati, in I. T. A. No. 336(Gau) of 1996 relevant for the assessment year 1989-90. The appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as discussed 40,000 (3) Income from undisclosed source as discussed (A) 41,819 (4) Income from undisclosed source as discussed (B) 3,17,005 Total income 4,81,314 or 4,81,310 It would appear from the assessment order that the assessee had executed contract works for a total value of Rs. 19,00,034 and out of this amount the assessee received Rs. 16,30,494.19 after deduction of security deposit, value of materials, and taxes deducted at source. The assessee has no bank account of its own and all the cheques received were credited to the personal bank account of Sri P. C. Saha, the steering partner at SEl, Agartala. The assessee disclosed a net profit of Rs. 82,493 at 5 per cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer added both the amount totalling Rs. 3,17,000 as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Guwahati. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found no basis for addition of Rs. 40,000 in the trading account on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not point out that the cases of other contractors relied upon by him were similarly situated and for identical works. The assessee was also not given any opportunity to explain that the cases have no relevance so far as the works executed by the assessee are concerned. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also held that the low drawing by the partners cannot be a ground for, adverse presumption and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the major partner in his individual capacity. The assessee-firm has been executing contract orders assigned to it by the major partner. There is no material on record to show that the assessee has executed any other contract and the value thereof has not been shown in the return of income. The income which is not in the hands of the assessee-firm cannot be taxed as income of the firm. It is the major partner who will be liable for any discrepancy in his bank account and the authorities below should have proceeded accordingly. Mr. Joshi, learned senior counsel, submitted that the discrepancies sought to be projected with regard to the non-credit of Rs. 41,819 and Rs. 1,86,762 is because of improper appreciation of the materials placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
