TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 200
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(i) G. Veeranna, (ii) Akki Reddy, and (iii) Sanna Veeranna. It is stated that the firm did not have any business activities from 31st March, 1992, onwards and because of this reason, no return of income was filed in the name of the firm for the asst. yrs. 1997-98 to 1999-2000. The AO issued notices under s. 148 of the IT Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") (It would not be out of place to mention that it is the case of the assessee that notice under s.148 was served only on this appellant and not on the other two alleged partners). The AO completed the assessment under s. 144 ex parte as there was no compliance of the said notice. In so computing, the AO treated the rent received from a residential house situated at R.T.Nagar, B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amongst the partners and it is the case of Shri G. Veeranna that the assessment was completed at the instance of other partners, particularly Shri Akki Reddy and the letter of Shri G. Veeranna, dt. 29th Sept., 1997, which is on the record of the ITO has been completely ignored by him. 5. We have heard the rival submissions on these grounds, perused the evidence on record and gone through the appellate order. Vide para 2 of the appellate order, it is clear that there is a dispute amongst the partners and partner G. Veeranna appeared before the AO and stated that he had retired from the firm w.e.f. 1st April, 1996 and the partnership firm stood dissolved from that date. Thereafter only the ITO issued summons to all the other partners and o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g in favour of the argument of the learned authorised representative but we will directly come to the legal issue raised by the learned authorised representative wherein he has challenged the reopening of the assessment. We do not find any fault in the reopening of this assessment although there are certain irregularities committed by the ITO like he did not send notices to all the partners, etc., and in the given circumstances of this case, rather it was incumbent upon the ITO to find out the real and exact facts of the case. 7. The next issue raised by the learned authorised representative is that the return of income from the partner in question has been wrongly assessed in the status of the firm whereas this property does not belong ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iii) This property was never transferred to the firm and there is no such evidence on the file. (iv) In the paper book filed before us, lease deed is placed. In pp. 7 to 11 of the paper book filed by the learned authorised representative, receipt of house tax is attached which is in the name of G. Veeranna, individual. At p. 31 of the paper book self-assessment tax order from the BDA is also filed. (v) No notice under s. 144 of the Act to show case was issued for the first year to the said G. Veeranna. (vi) Letter dt. 13th Jan., 2002 was not at all considered by the ITO although the order was passed on 24th Jan., 2002. 8. We have seen the complete records available before us. We are of the opinion that the other two partners ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eous Petition, dt. 11th Feb., 2002, was filed before the CIT(A) for getting rectification of the order but that according to the learned authorised representative was not deliberately disposed of and this proves mala fide action on behalf of the Department against the said G. Veeranna. 9. We are convinced that there is no evidence on record to prove that the firm earned any income from property in question. So, no assessment can be made on the firm on property income. But one specific argument which was advanced by the learned Departmental Representative, of course, can be considered is that in compliance with the notice under s. 148 of the Act, assessee, instead of filing return of income in his individual capacity, filed return of inco....