2022 (8) TMI 288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essment year 2006-07. The impugned order was originated from the order of Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Pathankot (in brevity A.O.) order passed u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act date of order 20.03.14. 2. Assessee has raised the following grounds which are extracted as follows: Grounds of Appeal 1. The lower Authority has grossly erred in initiating proceedings under section 147/148 against the appellant in his individual capacity, to assessee share in the partnership firm, which is prima facie contrary to facts of the case and assessment order is the void ab initio. 2. That the assessee had led plethora of evidence before the Ld. Assessing Officer to the effect that the partnership firm namely "Real Estate" was legall....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... disposed off. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the notice u/s. 148 was issued against the assessee on 15.03.2013. In respect to the said notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 03.06.2013 declaring the NIL income as there was no income and only assessee purchased a property. The reasons are recorded by the Ld. AO which is extracted as follows as per page No. 2 of the assessment order: "On the basis of information available in this office, it has been mentioned that above mentioned person has purchased a property for a worth of Rs. 9,53,750/- having 1/4th share of total value of property at Rs. 38,15,000 including stamp duty as per sale deed executed on 13.12.2005 from Sh. Srinderjit Singh Jasapal, S/O. Sh. Achha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,00,000/- was claimed to be received as advance from Rajinder Singh, Surinder Singh and Ashok Kumar as 1/3rd share each. The rest of amount at Rs. 1,53,750/- was paid from the savings of the family. Thus, the assessee has totally explained the share of assessee in purchase of property and this was only share in M/s. Real Estate. 3.2. The Ld. AO asked for detail of the existence of the firm M/s. Real Estate, as the assessee was co-owner of the firm. The firm had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 25,67,950/-. Considering the cash as undisclosed source, the assessee's share in firm @ 30% i.e. amount to Rs. 7,70,000/- related to deposit in cash in firm's account was added back with the total income of the assessee. But the Ld. AO did n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessment of the firm how the amount deposited in account of the firm was added back in the partner's hand. Further, the Ld. AO fully deviated from reason recorded & the addition made in assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue in his order. The respectful observation of the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-5, Mumbai v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. held that: "Whether, however, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holds that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some other....