TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Partners' Undisclosed Income Remanded for Re-evaluation by CIT(A)</h1> <h3>Maheshbhai Shantibhai Patel (HUF), Shantibhai P. Patel (HUF), Smt. Kashiben Shantilal Patel And Smt. Kashiben Shantilal Patel Versus ITO, Ward-3 (3) (8) Ahmedabad</h3> Maheshbhai Shantibhai Patel (HUF), Shantibhai P. Patel (HUF), Smt. Kashiben Shantilal Patel And Smt. Kashiben Shantilal Patel Versus ITO, Ward-3 (3) (8) ... Issues:Appeals filed against CIT(A) orders under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 concerning undisclosed profit of a partnership firm.Analysis:The appeals involved inter-connected issues as all assessees were partners of a common firm. The lead case, ITA No.3447/Ahd/2016, focused on the dispute regarding undisclosed profit of the partnership firm. The AO added Rs. 9.75 lakhs to the total income of the assessee-partner as unaccounted profit for assessment year 2008-09. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that undisclosed income of the firm must be added to the partners' hands if the firm has not disclosed it for taxation. The CIT(A) found no merit in the contention that the undisclosed income of the firm should not be taxed in the partners' hands. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the undisclosed income had already been included in the settlement application filed by the partnership firm under section 245C(1) of the Income Tax Act.The Tribunal acknowledged the principle that undisclosed income taxed in the hands of the partnership firm cannot be taxed again in the partners' hands. However, it noted that whether the disputed income was part of the additional income declared before the Settlement Commission was a factual question not raised before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for re-evaluation. The Tribunal also considered the argument that income should be taxed only in the hands of the partnership firm but emphasized the partners' liability for the firm's acts under the Partnership Act. Since the matter was remanded, the Tribunal did not delve further into this aspect.Consequently, the Tribunal set aside all appeals for fresh adjudication by the CIT(A) based on the directions provided. The decision was pronounced on 11th May, 2018, at Ahmedabad.
TaxTMI 