What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following a previous ruling that expenses incurred by a partner in their individual capacity are not deductible if the business is carried on by the firm. Therefore, the disallowance of expenses was justified.

The assessee's appeal was heard ex-parte as the notice sent by RPAD was unserved and no one appeared for the assessee. The dispute concerned the disallowance of business and entertainment expenses and law books/periodicals claimed by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether expenses claimed by a partner in their individual capacity are deductible when the business is carried on by a firm. The deductibility of business, entertainment, and professional expenses.

Late Sam Burjorjt Jijina vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, DR

This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Mumbai, dated 06-03-2018 for the AY. 2011-12.

This appeal was fixed for hearing on 30-01-2019. Notice of hearing was sent to the assessee by RPAD on the address provided by the assessee in Form No. 36 i.e. the appeal memo.

The said notice has come back un-served. The assessee has not intimated about any new address and hence, service of notice on the assessee is not possible. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and at the time of hearing, there is no request for adjournment. Therefore, in the present facts, the appeal of the assessee was heard ex-parte qua the assessee.

Ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of the authorities below.

I have considered the submissions of Ld. DR for the Revenue and gone through the orders of the authorities below and material available on record. I find that the only issue in dispute is regarding disallowance of total expenses of Rs. 1.12 Lakhs claimed by the assessee as expenses towards business and entertainment expenses of Rs. 72,000/- and towards law books, periodicals and Gen. Rs. 40,000/- against the remuneration from the firm in which assessee was a partner.

This issue was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) by following the Tribunal’s order rendered in the case of Sanjay Rambhia Vs. ITO in in which it was held that when the business or profession is carried on by the firm and not by the partner concerned, no deduction on account of any expenditure claimed to be incurred for professional or business man in individual capacity could be allowed. Under this factual and legal position, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Grounds raised by assessee are rejected.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 1st day of February, 2019

LATE SAM BURJORJT JIJINA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(3)(3), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments