Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
आदेश / O R D E R
These two appeals by the revenue are directed against order of the CIT(A)-I, Indore dated 27.05.2019 pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. Since the issues are common both appeals are taken up together and are being disposed by way of consolidated order.
[ITA Nos.768 & 769/Ind/2019] [Shri Bharat Jain]
First we take up the revenue’s appeal in ITANo.768/Ind/2019 for the Assessment year 2009-10.
The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,80,000/- on account of remunerations to the assessee. 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in admitting the additional evidences in form of addenda to partnership deed in violation of Rule 46A and without giving opportunity to the Assessing Officer. (The case is covered in exception as per para 10(C) of circular 3/2018 regarding monetary limit) 3.The appellant craves leave to add to or deduct from or otherwise amend the above grounds of appeal
.”
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the case of the assessee was reopened for assessment and the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) was framed vide order dated 21.11.2016. The assessing officer while framing the assessment, noticed that the salary of Rs.1,80,000/- @ Rs.15,000/- per month has been escaped from assessment
[ITA Nos.768 & 769/Ind/2019] [Shri Bharat Jain] and the deduction u/s 80IB was claimed in excess to that extent. Hence, the assessing officer made addition of Rs.1,80,000/-, the income of the assessee was assed at Rs.7,59,070/- against returned income of Rs.5,79,070/-.
Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions allowed the appeal.
Ld. D.R. vehemently argued that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition, he supported the order of the assessing officer.
On the contrary, Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has given a finding on fact which is not controverted by the revenue.
I have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record. Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue by observing as under: 3
[ITA Nos.768 & 769/Ind/2019] [Shri Bharat Jain]
“Exemption u/s 80IB of the income Tax Act, 1961 and during the year under consideration has claimed exemption of Rs.2,18,16,434/-. However, it is observed that the exemption claimed by the above firm included an amount of Rs.1,80,OOO/- shown as remuneration allowable to the partner as per partnership deed. The appellant has not disputed the fact that the exemption amount included an amount of Rs.1,80,OOO/-. However, it is mainly contended that the said amount of remuneration was never paid to the partner i.e. the appellant under consideration. The appellant has also filed the detailed written submissions which are duly reproduced above. It is found that the entire set of submissions revolved around the point that the remuneration was never paid to the appellant as such the same cannot be taxed notionally as deemed remuneration. Further, during the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant has filed a copy of addenda to the partnership deed which clearly does away with the terms specified in clause 7 & 9 of partnership deed which provided for remuneration to the .partners, The partnership deed is dated 24/03/2005 and the addenda to the same are dated 31/03/2005. This clearly shows that the intended payment of remuneration to the partners was duly withdrawn within 7 days of partnership deed. Therefore, in my considered opinion the remuneration to the partners have not been paid by the firm as such the AO has not been found justified in making addition of Rs.1,80,000 / - on notional' basis. This ground of appeal is allowed.
8. The above finding on fact is not controverted by the revenue. We do not see any reason to interfere in the [ITA Nos.768 & 769/Ind/2019] [Shri Bharat Jain] finding of Ld. CIT(A) same is hereby affirmed. Grounds raised in this appeal are dismissed.
Now we take up the Revenue’s appeal in ITANo.769/Ind/2019 for the Assessment year 2009-10.
The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,80,000/- on account of remunerations to the assessee.
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in admitting the additional evidences in form of addenda to partnership deed in violation of Rule 46A and without giving opportunity to the Assessing Officer. (The case is covered in exception as per para 10(C) of circular 3/2018 regarding monetary limit) 3. The appellant craves leave to add to or deduct from or otherwise amend the above grounds of appeal.”
The facts are identical as were in the ITANo.768/Ind/2019 both representative of the parties have adopted the same arguments for the same reasoning.
I do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of Ld.
[ITA Nos.768 & 769/Ind/2019] [Shri Bharat Jain] CIT(A) same is hereby affirmed. Grounds raised in this appeal are dismissed.
In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
Order was pronounced in the open court on 09 .03.2020.