2004 (3) TMI 314 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of remuneration paid to a partner in the capacity of Karta of HUF under section 40(b) of the IT Act.
2. Disallowance of vehicle expenses and depreciation.
3. Disallowance of telephone expenses for personal use.

Issue 1: Disallowance of remuneration paid to a partner in the capacity of Karta of HUF under section 40(b) of the IT Act:
The appeal was against the disallowance of remuneration of Rs. 46,000 paid to a partner in the capacity of Karta of HUF. The Assessing Officer disallowed the remuneration based on Explanation 4 to section 40(b) of the IT Act, stating that remuneration to only an individual working partner is allowable. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance due to lack of evidence showing active involvement of the partner in the business. The appellant argued that the remuneration was paid to an individual, the Karta of HUF, and relied on an agreement and a Tribunal decision supporting the claim. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' orders, citing a High Court judgment. The appellant referenced a Supreme Court decision and submitted evidence of services rendered. The Tribunal held that remuneration paid to a partner in a representative capacity cannot be considered as payment to HUF but to the individual, and remitted the issue to the AO for reevaluation with proper examination of evidence.

Issue 2: Disallowance of vehicle expenses and depreciation:
The AO disallowed 1/5th of vehicle expenses and depreciation on vehicles. The appellant contended that the vehicles were used solely for business purposes. The Tribunal noted that the disallowance was reasonable considering the possibility of personal use, the number of partners, and the amount of expenditure, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on this issue.

Issue 3: Disallowance of telephone expenses for personal use:
The AO disallowed Rs. 3,000 for personal use of the telephone. The appellant argued that the disallowance was excessive. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that the possibility of personal use could not be ruled out, and found the amount reasonable based on the circumstances.

In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, addressing the issues of remuneration disallowance, vehicle expenses, and telephone expenses. The Tribunal directed a reevaluation of the remuneration issue by the AO, upheld the disallowance of vehicle expenses and depreciation, and confirmed the disallowance of telephone expenses for personal use.