TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1048
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, is ultra vires and bad in law and ought to be quashed. 1.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding validity of re-assessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer. 1.3 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that all the material facts were disclosed by the appellant in the course of assessment proceedings and hence, initiation of re-assessment proceedings after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the AY 2009-10, on the same set of facts, is not in accordance with the provisions of law. Barred by limitation 1.4 The learned CIT(A) erred in observing that the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 148 of the Act within the time frame. 1.5 The learned CIT(A) erred in observing that the appellant is not entitled to question the jurisdiction moreover because the appellant had filed return in response to such notice. 1.6 The learned C1T(A) ought to have appreciated that the reassessment order is barred by limitation in terms of section 149 of the Act as the reasons recorded for initiating the reassessment proceedings were communicated to the appellant after expiry of 6 years from the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing Officer's observation that the payment to retired partners has to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as no tax is deducted. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that no tax was required to be deducted at source from such payment. 2.7 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the Assessing Officer's observation that the payment to retired partners is in the nature of remuneration to working partners. 2.8 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in applying the provisions of section 40(b) of the Act in respect of payment to retired partners. 2.9 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the Assessing Officer's observation that the payment to retired partner is similar to pension payment to exemployees. 2.10 The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount of Rs. 1,37,75,514 is included in the income of the retired partners and offered to tax in their return of income. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal." (B) In thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings * Copy of order dated 23 November 2016 disposing the objections to reassessment * Letter dated 19 October 2016 objecting the re-opening assessment * Show cause notice dated 19 September 2016 issued under section 143(2) of the Act in re-assessment proceedings * Letter dated 16 September 2016 providing the reasons for reopening B) Letter dated 29 April 2016 requesting for reasons for re opening C) Notice dated 31 March 2016 issued under section 148 of Act * Letter dated 24 August 2015 filed by the appellant in response to audit objection * Letter dated 9 October 2013 filed by the appellant in response to audit objection * Copy of audit objection dated 6 September 2013 5. Letters/ Submissions filed before Assessing Officer (original assessment / rectification)- D) Notice dated 11 April 2013 issued under section 154 of the Act E) Submission dated 26 April 2013 in response to notice under section 154 of the Act. * Copy of assessment submission dated 16 November 2011 alongwith copy of Partnership Deed dated 1 April 2008 F) Assessment submission dated 16 September 2011 alongwith audited Financial Statement for the year ended 31 March 2009 6. Confirmation from Reti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Year 2011-12 and 2009-10 are similar. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order dated 15/01/2021 of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi is reproduced as under: "7.2 As far as the issue of disallowance of payment to Retired partners in Assessment Year 2011-12 is concerned, it is seen that this issue is also settled in favour of the assessee by numerous judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts as well as the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal. We find that an identical issue had come up before the ITAT Chennai bench in the case of a related concern of the assessee in assessment year 2011 - 12 and the ITAT Chennai bench in ITA No. 2077/MDS/2016, vide order dated 25/11 /2018, after relying on an order of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of CC Chokshi & Co. for assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 had held the issue in favour of the assessee. The Honhle High Court of Bombay in the case of DCIT versus Wadia Ghandy & Company, vide judgment dated 12/02/2019, also upheld an identical order of ITAT Mumbai and noted that payment to the partner would amount to diversion of income at source by overriding title. The court went on to observe that it was not necessary to refer to long line of decisio....