9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the assessee's application under Section 154. 2. Disallowance of remuneration to partners as per the supplementary deed. 3. Filing of revised return under Section 139(5) before the completion of assessment. 4. Legality and propriety of the CIT(A)'s order. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Application under Section 154: The assessee contested the rejection of their application under Section 154 by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO had concluded that there was no "mistake apparent from the record" because the supplementary partnership deed was not filed with the original return but was submitted later with a revised return. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, agreeing that the supplementary deed was not part of the original return and thus could not be considered in Section 154 proceedings. The Tribunal, however, found that the revised return filed within the permissible time should have been considered, and the AO was bound to take this into account for a correct assessment. 2. Disallowance of Remuneration to Partners: The AO disallowed the remuneration claimed by the assessee for the partners based on the supplementary deed, arguing that the supplementary deed was not filed with the original return. The CIT(A) supported this view, maintaining that the salary to the partners could not be allowed as per the supplementary deed filed later. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the AO should have considered the revised return and the supplementary deed, as it was filed within the statutory time limit and should have been part of the record for rectification under Section 154. 3. Filing of Revised Return under Section 139(5): The assessee filed a revised return under Section 139(5) before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year and prior to the completion of the assessment. The Tribunal noted that the AO made adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) based on the old partnership deed, disregarding the revised return. The Tribunal clarified that an adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) does not amount to the completion of the assessment, and thus the revised return filed within the time should have been considered by the AO. 4. Legality and Propriety of the CIT(A)'s Order: The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be narrow and pedantic, failing to consider the lawful right of the assessee to file a revised return. The Tribunal emphasized that the supplementary partnership deed constituted a record for the AO to make a rectification under Section 154. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A), directing the AO to take into consideration the supplementary partnership deed while computing the income of the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, directing the AO to consider the supplementary partnership deed and the revised return filed within the statutory time limit for a correct assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that the lawful rights of the assessee should not be taken away in a casual manner and highlighted the importance of considering all relevant documents in rectification proceedings.
|
