9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been pleased to appreciate the evidence and other material on record propertly. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6 lacs made by the Assessing Officer disallowing the expenses paid to Mr. U.A. Rana (Resident Partner) as reimbursement of Rs. 4,00,000/- per annum for running and maintaining the motor car and Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum given for maintenance of consultation room at his residence and Rs. 80,000/- per annum as entertainment expenses, for entertainment of clients at the consultation room etc., according to the restrictions as per Clause 10.1 of partnership deed dated 1st July 2008. Hence, the addition made is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and against the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent partners for working late hours and on Sunday and holidays and the amount was restricted to Rs. 80,000/- as per clause 10.1 of the partnership deed. The assessee also claimed to produce vouchers for the said expenses, however, the ld. Assessing Officer noticed that the vouchers were in respect of monthly reimbursement of the expenses and no actual bills/invoices were attached with those vouchers. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, those payments were made to the resident partner, Mr. U.A. Rana, however, there was no actual expenditure made by the assessee firm. He further observed that the payments were made only to one resident partner and only on salary and interest paid to the partner was eligible for deduction subject to the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He further submitted that the said expenses have been allowed in the earlier years and, therefore, though the res judicata is not applicable to income-tax proceedings , but in view of the consistency principle, the expenses should have been allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned Sr. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record, including the orders of the lower authorities and the paper book filed by the assessee. The assessee has claimed expenses of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the amount reimbursed to the resident partner Sh. U.A. Rana for the use and maintenance of the motor car. It is not in dispute that the vouchers in respect of reimburseme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receding years, we find that this issue was not examined by the ld. Assessing Officer and thus the rule of consistency will not apply in the present facts. In our opinion, the expenses on car maintenance, office maintenance and entertainment to clients have been debited by Sh. U.A. Rana in his books of accounts and same have been reimbursed to him by the assessee firm claiming to have incurred for the purposes of the business and professions of the assessee firm, however, such bills were not produced before the ld. Assessing Officer for verification whether incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession of the assessee firm. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
