9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee HUF?" 2. The admitted facts, as set out in the statement of the case are : The assessees are six HUFs whose Kartas are partners in a firm M/s RM Appavoo Chettiar Sons, Madurai. The firm paid remuneration to the Kartas as there was provision for such payment being made in the partnership deed. There was one other partner in the firm who was not paid any remuneration. Upto the asst. yr. 1980-81 the salary paid to them was at the rate of Rs. 9,000 per year. That was increased to Rs. 24,000 per year from the asst. yr. 1981-82 by a supplementary deed executed by the parties. The payment of salary at the rate of Rs. 9,000 per year for the year prior to 1981-82 had been the subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal and it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... increase in the remuneration paid to the Kartas." 4. In the order of assessment, the increase in the turnover that has been set out from the year 1975-76 to 1981-82 the turnover was Rs. 3.9 lakhs in 1975-76 much less than-that figure in the year 1976-77 to 1978-79. It increased to Rs. 10.5 lakhs in 1979-80 and was Rs. 14.8 lakhs in the years 1980-81 and 1981-82 5. The Tribunal has not referred to these figures. It however, has noticed that the remuneration at Rs. 9,000 p.a. was fixed in the initial year and apparently there had been no increase in the salary for about seven years. 6. Learned senior counsel for the assessee contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the increase in salary was unreasonable. He has also point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... salary was increased, in reality form part of the distributed profits, includible in the assessment of the HUFs. Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rashik Lal Co. vs. CIT (1998) 144 CTR (SC) 161 : (1998) 229 ITR 458(SC), to contend that the salary paid to a partner cannot be treated as income of the HUF. As we are remanding the matter back to the Tribunal, we do not consider it necessary to consider that contention. It is open to the petitioner to urge all their contentions before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to rehear the appeal after giving due opportunity to the parties and thereafter, dispose of the same in accordance with law, expeditiously. - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
