9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there was no change in the constitution of the firm and the assessee had filed a copy of the partnership deed which was signed by all the partners. It was further recorded that the procedural requirement of the Act had been complied with and, therefore, the assessee was liable to be assessed in the capacity of a partnership firm, But the counsel has not been able to show any perversity in the said findings except trying to persuade this court to re-appraise the evidence. Finding no ground to interfere with the findings aforesaid, the substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue. The appeals are accordingly dismissed - ITA NO 162/05, ITA NO 163/05 - - - Dated:- 31-3-2011 - ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned the firm in place of three outgoing partners ? (ii) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing the assessee the status of firm even though the assessee failed to furnish a copy of the partnership deed with the return of income consequent to change in constitution of the firm ? (iii) Whether the firm having failed to comply with the provision of section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was to be assessed as an association of persons in view of section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" 5. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication as narrated in the appeal, are that the respondent-assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1993-94 on August 30, 1993, declaring income of Rs. 2,365 where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee had debited to the income returned on account of salary to the partners. Besides, a sum of Rs. 1,01,000 was disallowed and also added to the income returned, which the assessee had paid as interest to the partners. The Assessing Officer further made an addition of an amount of Rs. 3,23,669 which the assessee had shown to have paid as interest on the capital of the partners. 6. The appeal carried by the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short "the CIT(A)"), was allowed vide order dated January 24, 2001 whereby the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted. While doing so, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the assessee was entit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43(3), it is also not disputed that the assessee has filed a copy of the partnership deed duly signed by the partners. Since there has been a compliance with the procedural provisions of this statute, the assessee was entitled to the status of PFAS. The controversy, as to whether the assessee was duty bound to file a certified copy of the partnership deed when there was no change in the constitution of the firm may, thus, not be relevant in so far as the assessee has complied with the provisions of section 184 for grant of status of PFAS. Finding no infirmity in the order of the Com- missioner of Income-tax (Appeals), we decline to interfere." 11. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal concurrently came to the conclus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
