M/S. LAKSHMIKUMARAN & SRIDHARAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5207/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2010-11 Lakshmikumaran & Vs. DCIT, Circle 37(1), Sridharan,B-6/10, New Delhi. Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi PAN :AAAFL1585H (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv. & S/Shri Vasudevan & Karamjot Singh, Adv. Department by Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 21.11.2022 Date of pronouncement 30.11.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 19.06.2014
of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XXVIII, New
Delhi for the assessment year 2010-11.
The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:
A. Grounds relating to dis-allowance of remuneration paid to working partners. 1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in dis-allowing the remuneration paid to the workings partners.
2 ITA No.5207/Del./2014
The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the fact that the working partners had paid tax on the sums received by them at maximum marginal rate.
B. Grounds relating to treatment of refundable professional fee as income. 3. The learned Assessing Officer erred in considering refundable professional fee as income of the Appellant. 4. The learned Commissioner(Appeals) erred in observing that the Appellant failed to provide evidences to show that the said professional fee was refundable, despite the Appellant providing e-mail communications to establish the nature of the advance.
C. Grounds relating to dis-allowance of business promotion expenses. 5. The learned Assessing Officer erred in dis-allowing business promotion expenses incurred by the Appellant. 6. The learned Assessing Officer erred in making a ad-hoc dis- allowance of business expenses incurred by the Appellant. 7. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in observing the a part of the expenses are of personal nature.
D. Grounds relating to non granting a deduction under section 80G of the IT Act. 8. The learned Assessing Officer erred in not granting deduction under section 80G of the IT Act.
At the outset, Shri V. Sridharan, learned senior counsel
appearing for the assessee submitted that due to smallness of the
amount, ground nos. B and C are not to be pressed.
In view of the aforesaid submission of learned counsel, ground
nos. B and C are dismissed as not pressed.
3 ITA No.5207/Del./2014
As regards, ground no.A, learned counsel submitted, the assessee
is a partnership firm of advocates and derives income from profession
and other sources. He submitted, in terms with the partnership deed,
the assessee firm paid remuneration to the partners, as mutually agreed
by the partners. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that
unless the remuneration to be paid to the partners is quantified in the
partnership deed, it will not be allowed as deduction at the hands of
the partnership firm. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed
the deduction claimed by the assessee towards payment of
remuneration to the partners. He submitted, once the deduction is
disallowed at the hands of the partnership firm, the remuneration paid
cannot again be taxed at the hands of the partners. He submitted,
since, the partners had offered the remuneration received as income,
they filed rectification applications under section 155 of the Act
before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has passed
orders under Section 155(1A) of the Act rectifying the assessment of
the partners by reducing the income received by way of remuneration,
thereby, granting the desired relief at the hands of the partners. He
submitted, since, rectification orders have been passed in respect of
4 ITA No.5207/Del./2014
the partners, the ground raised becomes in-fructuous. In any case of
the matter, he submitted, the issue is tax neutral as the rate of tax,
both, at the hands of the assessee and the partners are same.
The learned Departmental Representative agreed with the
aforesaid submissions of the assessee.
Keeping in view the submissions of the parties, the ground
having become infructuous, is dismissed.
In ground no. D, the assessee has raised the issue of
disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80G of the Act.
Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted,
though, the assessee had claimed the deduction under section 80G of
the Act, in the return of income, however, the Assessing Officer did
not allow it. He submitted, in the appeal filed before the first appellate
authority, the assessee inadvertently did not raise any ground on the
issue. However, in the written submissions filed before learned
Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee not only raised the issue of
deduction under section 80G of the Act but filed the requisite approval
and certificate of the donee. However, learned Commissioner
(Appeals) completely ignored the submissions of the assessee.
5 ITA No.5207/Del./2014
Further, he submitted, assessee has filed a rectification application
before the Assessing Officer which is pending. Thus, he submitted,
this ground may be treated as an additional ground and the issue may
be restored to the Assessing Officer for examining assessee’s claim of
deduction under section 80G of the Act with reference to the
evidences filed.
The learned Departmental Representative did not object to
assessee’s submission for restoration of the issue to the Assessing
Officer.
We have considered the submissions of parties and perused the
materials on record.
Facts on record reveal, the assessee had claimed deductions
under Section 80G of the Act in the return of income. However, the
Assessing Officer overlooked assessee’s claim. Before learned
Commissioner (Appeals), though, assessee did not raise any specific
ground on the issue, however, in the written submission assessee not
only raised the issue but furnished supporting evidences. However,
learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to take notice of assessee’s
submission.
6 ITA No.5207/Del./2014
In view of the above, we accept assessee’s request for admitting
the ground raised as additional ground.
However, considering the fact that the Departmental Authorities
have not decided assessee’s claim of deduction under Section 80G of
the Act and in any case of the matter, assessee’s rectification
application on the issue is pending before the Assessing Officer, we
restore the issue to him with a direction to examine assessee’s claim of
deduction under Section 80G of the Act with reference to the
supporting evidences filed by the assessee.
Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer must decide the issue
in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard
to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th November, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30th November, 2022. Mohan Lal
7 ITA No.5207/Del./2014
