MAYUR WINES,NASHIK vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.885/PUN/2022 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mayur Wines, Vs. NFAC, Delhi. 1, Gokul Complex, Tambat Lane, Ozar, Tal- Niphad, Nashik- 422303. PAN : AAFFM5516Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sanket M. Joshi Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 23.05.2023 Date of pronouncement : 24.05.2023 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 25.11.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of liquor. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2017-18 was filed on 29.10.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.24,72,386/-. Against the said return of income, an intimation u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the

2 ITA No.885/PUN/2022 Act’) was issued disallowing the remuneration paid to the partners of Rs.35,76,830/-. On receipt of the information from the CPC, Bangaluru, a rectification application was filed on 16.02.2019 and the same came to be rejected vide order dated 14.05.2019 passed u/s 154 by the CPC, Bangaluru. 3. Being aggrieved by that order, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the CPC, Bangaluru on the ground that the appellant had failed to upload the partnership deed. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to the allowability of partner’s remuneration u/s 40(b) of the Act in the intimation sent u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. The CPC, Bangaluru had disallowed the remuneration to the partners merely on the ground that the return of income was not accompanied by the partnership deed. We have carefully gone through the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the Rules, it is nowhere mentioned that in order to allow the claim for deduction of partner’s remuneration, the return of income should be accompanied by the partnership deed and in absence of such

3 ITA No.885/PUN/2022 requirement under law, this cannot be treated as incorrect claim. Therefore, the CPC, Bangaluru ought not to have disallowed the partner’s remunerations while processing the return of income u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, we direct the CPC, Bangaluru to amend the intimation by deleting the addition on account of partner’s remuneration of Rs.35,76,830/-. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced on this 24th day of May, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 24th May, 2023. Sujeet आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.