TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. For that the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) - 20 New Delhi erred on facts as well as in law in not considering the reconciliation statement of erstwhile partnership firm's income and the assessee's individual income with the income returned by him in his individual return. 3. For that the Hon'ble CIT(Appeals) - 20 New Delhi erred on facts as well as in law in holding that the erstwhile partnership firm is alive and still earning income. 4. For that the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) - 20 New Delhi erred on facts as well as in law in sustaining the additions made by the AO, and thereby taxing the same income twice - once in the hands of Mr. Ashish Mathur, Individual and seco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). In response to the statutory notices, no one attended the assessment proceedings on behalf of the assessee. However, a copy of Dissolution Deed was sent to the Office of the Assessing Authority and it was intimated that the assessee's firm has been dissolved vide Dissolution Deed dated 31.03.2005 and it is run by Shri Ashish Mathur as proprietorship firm. The AO thereafter, called upon the assessee to explain the amount of Rs.33,50,000/- received as professional receipts by the partnership firm on which the tax has been deducted. However, no one responded the query raised by the Assessing Officer ("AO"). Thereafter, the AO made addition of Rs.33,50,000/- and assessed income of the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ashish Mathur in his Individual capacity in his individual PAN and also through the PAN of the firm. Under such, circumstances, it is not possible to believe that the firm is dissolved. Dissolution of the firm might have happened five years back i.e. in 2005, in pen and paper but actually the firm is alive and still earning income u/s 194C and 194J. Thus showing such income in the individual capacity cannot absolve the appellant from filing its own ITR when it is receiving amount in the same PAN. Therefore the action of the Assessing Officer is sustained. However the AO is directed to treat 50% of the gross receipts u/s 194J of the Act and 8% of the gross receipts u/s 194C of the Act as income of the appellant in congruence to provisions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....while partnership firm as my professional/contractual income, and have paid full tax as per the applicable provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Also, all the returns of income filed in my capacity as proprietor of M/s Mathur Ugam and Associates have been duly assessed by the Income Tax Department. 6. That when I received a notice from ITO ward 61(2), New Delhi, for non-filing of Income Tax Return of erstwhile partnership firm, I submitted a copy of the dissolution deed of the firm and also clarified to the Assessing Officer: * that the erstwhile partnership firm stood dissolved with effect from 01.04.2005 itself * that- in view of this, no ITR was filed by the erstwhile partnership firm for the Assessment ....