2022 (12) TMI 72 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of remuneration paid to working partners - As argued working partners had paid tax on the sums received by them at maximum marginal rate - assessee is a partnership firm of advocates and derives income from profession and other sources - AO was of the view that unless the remuneration to be paid to the partners is quantified in the partnership deed, it will not be allowed as deduction at the hands of the partnership firm - HELD THAT - Since, the partners had offered the remuneration received as income, they filed rectification applications u/s 155 before the AO and the AO has passed orders under Section 155(1A) of the Act rectifying the assessment of the partners by reducing the income received by way of remuneration, thereby, granting the desired relief at the hands of the partners. Since, rectification orders have been passed in respect of the partners, the ground raised becomes in-fructuous. Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G - assessee had claimed deductions u/s 80G, however, the Assessing Officer overlooked assessee s claim - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the Departmental Authorities have not decided assessee s claim of deduction under Section 80G of the Act and in any case of the matter, assessee s rectification application on the issue is pending before the Assessing Officer, we restore the issue to him with a direction to examine assessee s claim of deduction under Section 80G of the Act with reference to the supporting evidences filed by the assessee.Assessing Officer must decide the issue in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of remuneration paid to working partners.
2. Treatment of refundable professional fee as income.
3. Disallowance of business promotion expenses.
4. Non-granting a deduction under section 80G of the IT Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of remuneration paid to working partners
The appeal concerned the disallowance of remuneration paid to working partners by the assessee partnership firm. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee, stating that the remuneration must be quantified in the partnership deed to be allowed as a deduction. However, the partners had already paid tax on the remuneration received. The partners filed rectification applications under section 155 of the Act, and the Assessing Officer rectified the assessment by reducing the income received as remuneration. The Tribunal found the issue to be tax-neutral as the tax rate for both the firm and the partners was the same. Consequently, the ground became infructuous and was dismissed.

Issue 2: Treatment of refundable professional fee as income
The Assessing Officer treated the refundable professional fee as income of the appellant. The appellant provided email communications to establish the nature of the advance, but the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the fee being refundable. However, due to the smallness of the amount, the appellant decided not to press this ground, and it was dismissed accordingly.

Issue 3: Disallowance of business promotion expenses
The Assessing Officer disallowed the business promotion expenses incurred by the appellant, making an ad-hoc disallowance and stating that some expenses were of a personal nature. The appellant did not press this ground due to the smallness of the amount, and it was dismissed.

Issue 4: Non-granting a deduction under section 80G of the IT Act
The appellant claimed a deduction under section 80G of the IT Act, but the Assessing Officer did not allow it. The appellant raised the issue before the Commissioner (Appeals) with supporting evidence, but it was ignored. The Tribunal accepted the issue as an additional ground and directed the Assessing Officer to examine the claim of deduction under section 80G with reference to the evidences filed by the appellant. The Assessing Officer was instructed to decide the issue in accordance with the law after providing the appellant with an opportunity to be heard. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.