2017 (4) TMI 285

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iness between the firm and its partner Karta is not 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 bei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....receipts of Rs. 4,79,567/- has also been included in the gross contract 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gannath Choudhury. The contract is between M/s. Jagannath Choudhury 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 as....