YOGESH CHANDRA GUPTA,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri R.B. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri D.D. Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record. In all these appeals common substantial question of law is involved, hence decided by the present common judgment. The questions framed in these appeals are same.
(2.) WHILE admitting the present appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Division Bench of this Court had relied upon the following two substantial questions of law: 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that reassessment under Section 147 was justified on the basis of the forensic report opining on the variance of signatures of the partners on the confirmatory letters admitting their capital contributions with reference to the signatures in the partnership deed, dehors, its relevance to the assessee-firm and the assessment year in question. 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that "reasons to believe" are merely administrative decision despite the provisions of the Act and the settled law on the point that they are relevant to the assumption of jurisdiction and also justiciable in Court of law and the Appellate Authorities. Dispute relates to the Assessment Year 1993-94. The appellant partnership firm was created on 9th May 1992 having ten partners to deal with country liquor under the licence granted by the State. Return was filed on 26th October, 1993 and assessment was made on the total income of Rs.12,47,040/- on 27th March, 1995 and additions were made under Section 68 of the Act for deposits found in the books of account on the ground that only three of the partners were found to be explained the material on record. The Appellate Authority reduced the computed income of Rs. 2,18,640/- with regard to original assessment.
(3.) HOWEVER , certain discrepancies were noted by the Assessing Officer in March 1996 with regard to signatures over the confirmatory letters of the partners. Forensic Expert opined that there is significant difference over the signature of the partnership deed and the confirmatory letters which cannot be explained as natural variation. The expert further opined that there appears to be two different writing habits by two different writers. On the basis of the report of the expert, notices were issued under Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 1993-94. The Assessing Officer had gone through the record with regard to each of the partners and recorded a finding that the amount credited as remuneration is being added to the income of the firm. He further held that entire capital contribution relates to the period prior to the formation of the firm, as contribution made by the partners at the time of auction bid, hence no addition is proposed to be in the hands of the firm. It is to be considered in the personal assessment of the partners.;