9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find that the Hon’ble High Court has held that the expenditure was allowable. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.B. Ghose (1980 (6) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA High Court ), after considering various judgments held that – When the income of a partnership is allocated t the different partners of a firm, the partners are entitled to have their income assessed in accordance with law, that is to say, under section 28 of the I.T. Act, 1961. In making that assessment, a partner of the firm, being an assessee, is entitled to all the deductions allowable under the Act. In order to earn the income as a partner of a firm, a partner of a firm has to do some work and he has to incur certain expenses, e.g., holding consultation for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the order of ld. CIT, Kota dated 09.02.2015 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- The learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota erred in law as well as on facts in passing the order under section 263 of I.T. Act 1961 without pointing out any particular error in the order of Assessing Officer passed on 19.12.2012 which is passed after proper enquiry, discussions, taking evidence etc. etc. during the assessment proceedings. The commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that Assessing Officer has completed the assessment after detail enquiry, examination of accounts and details of expenses and obtained all necessary evidences etc. etc. and passed order dated 19.12.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e income from interest and remuneration arises from different partnership firms and also on the basis that the deduction claimed under section 80C of ₹ 80,605/- was excessive as allowable deduction under section 80C comes to ₹ 56,749/-. In response to the notice issued under section 263, the assessee made written submissions dated 9th December, 2014. The ld. CIT did not accept the contention of the assessee and proceeded to pass the impugned order and held that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. He set aside the assessment with a direction to the AO to frame it denovo after making proper enquiry and verification of books of account and other records/documents and aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel submitted that in respect of specific query in point no. 7, evidence of deduction claimed u/s 80C has been given. The ld. Counsel relying upon the judgment of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Binani Cement Ltd., 384 ITR 457 (Cal.) submitted that even if there may be error then the Assessing Officer can correct the mistake apparent from record. The ld. Counsel submitted that in the case in hand, the revenue has failed to demonstrate that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3.2. On the contrary, the ld. D/R supported the order of the ld. CIT and submitted that so far the excessive claim of deduction is concerned, the assessee has conceded the fact that it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of salary and allowances, postage, telephone stationery and traveling, car, vehicle and conveyance, bank charges, other business office expenses, legal expenses and fees, depreciation. The explanation of the assessee before the AO vide his letter dated 5th November, 2012 in point no. 10 has stated that interest has been received from M/s. Madho Associates, Kota, Brijraj Bhawan Palace Hotel, Mayur Service Station, Kota and Toshakhana, besides interest remuneration from M/s. Mahalaxmi Association, Kota and Toshakhana. All these firms are old firms and assessed to tax since a long time. The same partnership deed continued. From that it is clear that the assessee has stated that he was partner in various partnership firms. In respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew was not justified. 4. Another ground the ld. CIT has taken for invoking provisions of section 263 is that the assessee s excessive claim of deduction under section 80C was allowed by the AO without making enquiry with regard to the allowability of such claim. As per the ld. CIT, the assessee was entitled for deduction of ₹ 56,749/- out of ₹ 80,605/-, hence the deduction of ₹ 23,856/- was not allowable and the AO allowed such deduction. 4.1. The contention of the assessee is that on this ground also the ld. CIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263. It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that out of ₹ 80,605/-, the ld. CIT hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
