TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 841
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....truction wherein the assessee is a partner. Income received on fixed deposit pledged with the contractee of the firm M/s. Biraja Construction as the said amount is the income of the firm duly reflected in the audited accounts. 2. That the said interest income of Rs. 9,14,634/- has been offered for taxation in the hands of the firm together with other interest income of the firm totaling to Rs. 19,41,723/- which could be verified from the profit and loss account and income tax return of the firm for the assessment year 2012-13 and this method of accountancy is adopted consistently year after year accepted by the revenue." 3. The assessee has filed appeal belatedly by 61 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition dated 24.7.2020 con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....avelled upto the first appellate authority, the CIT(A) noticed that the interest income shown in Form 26AS of M/s. Biraja Construction is Nil while as per Form 26AS of the assessee, the interest income of Rs. 9,14,634/- was shown. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the profit and loss account of M/s. Biraja Construction for A.Y. 2012-13 shown an interest income of Rs. 19,41,723/- and that this amount is inclusive of interest income of Rs. 9,14,634/-. The CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee on the ground that it is not open to the assessee to shuffle income tax returns and show income in hands where it has not rightfully accrued. Thus, the findings of the AO was confirmed. 6. Before the Tribunal, it is the conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. A.R. submitted that the main allegation of Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has not segregated the amount is complied with. 7. Ld. A.R. also referred to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-2010 in ITA No. 592/CTK/2012 order dated 11.1.2013, wherein, it has been held by the Tribunal that the contract receipt in the name of the partner was considered as the amount received by the firm. Ld. A.R. submitted that the impugned interest income of a firm is to be taxed in the in the hands of the firm alone. This can, under no circumstances, be taxed in the hands of its partner. He submitted that since the interest amount has been taxed in the hands of the firm, same amount cannot be taxed in the h....