SRI RAGHUNATH JI & SONS,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-47(1), DELHI

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "SMC": NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 4053/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)

M/s. Sri Raghunath Ji & Sons, 2046, Katra Tobacco, Khari Baoli, Delhi | Vs. | ITO, Ward-47(1), New Delhi PAN: ABPFS2204G

Assessee by : | Shri K. R. Manjani, Adv Shri Tarun Aswani, Adv Revenue by: | Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing | 12/08/2025 Date of pronouncement | 27/08/2025

O R D E R

- 1. The appeal in ITA No.4053/Del/2025 for AY 2014-15 arises out of the order of the ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as 'ld. CIT(A)', in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1076768375(1) dated 06.06.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 27.09.2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by ITO, Ward-47 (1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'ld. AO'). - 2. Ground No. 1 (i) raised by the assessee is challenging the disallowance of additional sales tax of ₹27,639/- paid by the assessee on 01.08.2013. - 3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee is the salesman and had paid additional sales tax (Central Sales Tax) on 01.08.2013 in the sum of ₹27,639/- pertaining to Accounting Year 2011–12. This matter requires factual verification by the ld AO. Hence I deem it fit and appropriate to restore this matter to the file of the ld AO with the direction that if the sum of ₹27639/- was proved to have

been paid on 01.08.2013 on account of additional Sales tax, the same would be allowable as deduction u/s 43B of the Act. On the contrary, if the same is found not to have paid, it shall be disallowed. Accordingly Ground No. 1(i) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

- 4. Ground No. 1(ii) raised by the assessee is challenging the disallowance of partner's salary of ₹2,90,790/- on the ground of partnership deed not been given by the assessee before the ld AO. - 5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The ld AO noted that the partnership deed submitted by the assessee did not contain the name of incoming partner Mr. Kunal Bhatia. Accordingly, the partner's remuneration claimed as deduction in the sum of ₹2,90,709/- was sought to be disallowed by the ld AO which stood upheld by the ld NFAC. The ld AR before us placed on record one partnership deed dated 12.04.2010 wherein name of Mr. Kunal Bhatia is shown as partner by the assessee firm. This deed is duly signed by all the parties and duly witnessed. It appears that the said document is not placed before the lower authorities and hence, in the interest of justice and fairplay, I deem it appropriate to restore this matter to the file of ld AO for factual verification. Accordingly, Ground No. 1(ii) raised by the assessee is restored to the file of the ld AO and allowed for statistical purposes. - 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27/08/2025.

-Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 27/08/2025

A K Keot

Copy forwarded to

- 1. Applicant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT - 4. CIT (A) - 5. DR:ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi