M/S MAHALAXMIJEWELLERS,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(2), BELGAUM

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH “SMC”, PANAJI – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.458/PAN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Mahalaxmi Jewellers, Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), 112, Jed Galli, Shahapur, Belgaum. Belgaum- 590003. PAN : AASFM0883H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue by : Smt. Rijula Uniyal (Virtual) Date of hearing : 11.06.2026 Date of pronouncement : 05.08.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned Assessing Officer was not justified in making and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding, the addition of Rs.1,85,320/- as alleged undisclosed income. 2. The learned Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have erred in making and sustaining the addition of Rs.4,96,043/- to the total income of the appellant-firm

2 ITA No.458/PAN/2025 towards disallowance of interest and remuneration paid to partners. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide on the appeal in accordance with the law.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm consisting of two partners namely, Shri Dattaram Sitaram Anvekar and Smt. Pooja Anvekar. The assessee partnership firm has not furnished its return of income for the year under consideration. A survey u/s 133A of the IT Act was conducted at the business premises of M/s Kouber Jewellers wherein it was discovered that the assessee partnership firm namely M/s. Mahalaxmi Jewellers is also functioning at the same address and since its business is not going well the firm is being closed and a new firm M/s Kouber Jewellers has been formed. The assessee firm in its profit & loss account has declared net profit of Rs.1,85,320/- after claiming deduction of Rs.4,96,043/- on account of remuneration to the partners of the firm. Since the assessee partnership firm has not filed the return of income for assessment year 2013-14, the claim of remuneration paid to partners amounting to Rs.4,96,043/- is disallowed. The Assessing Officer vide order

3 ITA No.458/PAN/2025 dated 27.12.2018 completed the assessment proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee firm at Rs.6,81,360/- as against no return filed by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition on account of net profit of Rs.1,85,320/- not disclosed in the return of income and addition of Rs.4,96,043/- on account of disallowance of remuneration paid to both the partners. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that it is the alternate request of the counsel of the assessee that the addition to the extent of Rs.2,97,626/- may kindly be deleted from the hands of the assessee firm, since case of one of the partner namely Shri Dattaram Sitaram Anvekar was also reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act & addition on account of remuneration of Rs.2,97,626/- received

4 ITA No.458/PAN/2025 from the assessee firm was already made in the hands of the above partner which was accepted by the partner & no appeal was filed against it. In sum & substance, it is the request of the counsel of the assessee that addition of Rs.2,97,626/- has already been made in the hands of one of the partners on account of remuneration from the assessee firm, therefore, to that extent addition made in the hands of the partnership firm on account of disallowance of remuneration paid to partner may kindly be deleted. In support of this contention, copy of assessment order dated 19-07-2019 for Asstt Year 2013-14 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act in the case of partner Shri Dattaram Sitaram Anvekar is also produced before the bench wherein addition on account of remuneration of Rs.2,97,626/- from assessee partnership firm is evident. 7. Considering the totality of the facts of the case & in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) & direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.2,97,626/- from the hands of the assessee partnership firm, which was made on account of disallowance of remuneration to partner since the same, amounts to double taxation in the light of the fact that the amount of Rs.2,97,626/- was also taxed in the hands

5 ITA No.458/PAN/2025 of the partner, namely Shri Dattaram Sitaram Anvekar for the same assessment year & against which no appeal was filed by the partner. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 05th day of August, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 05th August, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.08.06 12:50:39 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A)-2, Panaji. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. 5. DR, ITAT, Panaji. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.