TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 852
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, concerning various assessment years captioned above. 2. Issues in all four appeals are inter-connected. All assessees are partners of a common firm giving rise to the dispute in hand. Therefore, all the appeals were are being heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 3. We first take ITA No.3447/Ahd/2016 as lead case for adjudication of the dispute. ITA No.3447/Ahd/2016 in the case of Maheshbhai Shantibhai Patel (HUF): 4. In the captioned appeal, first two grounds seeking quashing of order of the AO under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 in toto, and not providing adequate of opportunity of hearing have not been addressed for adjudicatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income in its return nor has paid any taxes thereon. The AO accordingly observed that the assessee and other family members (appellants herein) are liable to pay taxes for the share of undisclosed income received from the partnership firm. The AO thus, allocated unaccounted profit relatable to assessment year 2007-08 and assessment year 2008-09 as admitted by the partner in the hands of respective partners having regard to their respective share of interest in the partnership firm. Working of apportionment in the undisclosed income in the hands of various partners is tabulated by the AO at page no.3 of the assessment order. As a consequence of allocation of unaccounted profit, the AO found that the assessee (Mahesh Shantilal Patel - HUF) ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the additions made by the lower authorities are not sustainable on two prominent grounds, viz. (i) the undisclosed income has arisen in the hands of the partnership firm and not partners, and therefore, the undisclosed income can be possibly taxed only in the hands of the partnership firm. It was thus contended that the assessee has been wrongly taxed for the income belonging to other entities, and (ii) the partnership firm has included the impugned undisclosed income in the settlement application moved by the partnership firm under section 245C(1) of the Income Tax Act, and therefore, on this ground also, the alleged undisclosed income cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee-partner. 12. The ld.AR extensively referred to the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....again in the hands of the partner. However, in the same vein, we find that question as to whether the undisclosed income in controversy, forms part of the additional income declared before the Settlement Commission or not, is essentially a question of fact. This aspect has not been raised before the lower authorities, and thus remained unanswered. Hence, as a measure of fair-play, the issue requires to be remanded back and restored to the file of CIT(A) to re-appreciate the limited aspect as to whether income in dispute has already been included in the additional income offered by the partnership firm before the Settlement Commission, directly or indirectly. Therefore, we consider it expedient to set aside the issue to the file of the CIT(A....