TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2009-2010 wherein, it has been held that the contract receipt in the name of the partner was to be considered as the amount received by the firm. Since amount has already been offered for taxation in the hands of the firm M/s. Biraja Construction, the said amount to be taxed in the hands of the individual partner i.e. assessee would amount to double taxation, which is not permissible under law. Even otherwise, there is no provision of law to deduct TDS on the interest amount received against NSC and saving account. Hence, we direct the AO to delete the amount and allow the appeal of the assessee. - ITA No. 144/CTK/2020 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2021 - Chandra Mohan Garg, Member (J) F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was delay of 61 days in filing the appeal. In the petition, it is stated that the delay was not intentional and, therefore, same should be condoned. The Ld. DR opposed to the condonation of delay prayer. After considering the condonation petition and hearing the parties, I am convinced that the delay in filing by the assessee was not intentional and, therefore, the prayer of the assessee for condoning the delay was accepted. I, therefore, condone the delay of 61 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a partner in the firm M/s. Biraja Construction, Ganapatipur, Kodandapur, Jajpur. He derives income from salary and interest income from partnership firm. During the course of assessment p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstruction and bills and TDS are received in the name of Birendra Kumar Mohanty and the money which has been deposited as fixed deposit are also out of the income of the firm. So interest income received in the name of the assessee has been shown in the income of the firm under the head interest income . He referred to page 4 of the income tax return of the firm to support his contention. Ld. A.R. submitted that since the said amount has already been offered for taxation in the hands of the firm M/s. Biraja Construction, again same amount cannot be assessed in the hands of the individual partner,. He submitted that this practice is consistently followed year after year. Ld. A.R. referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the assessee shows that the assessee was in receipt of interest from different banks and the assessee has not declared and shown the same in the income tax return, the authorities below were justified in disallowing the same. 9. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. I have also perused the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2009-2010 (supra). The Assessing Officer noticed that in 26AS of M/s. Biraja Construction, the interest income has been shown Nil, wherein, in the 26AS of the assessee, there are entries for interest income of ₹ 9,14,634/-. It is the contention of the assessee that the profit and loss account of M/s. Biraja Construction for A.Y. 2012-13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
