9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . No proceedings u/s. 147 or 263 have been initiated in subsequent years after the order of the CIT(A), rejecting the claim of the assessee. In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the disallowance made by the AO. Accordingly the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is set aside and the ground raised by the assessee on this issue is allowed. Addition under the head income from the house property - AO made addition on the ground that the assessee did not submit any documentary evidence in support of his claim that the premises was vacated by Sinclair Knight Merz Consulting (India) P. Ltd. - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) also the assessee did not give any supporting evidence that the premises was vacated by the said tenant for which he upheld the action of the AO. It is the submission of the assessee that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate the claim by producing necessary evidence. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to grant an opportunity to the assessee to subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sallowed the expense of ₹ 1,80,000/- claimed by the assessee against the remuneration and added back to the income of the assessee. 5. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO by observing as under :- 2.3 I have considered the contentions of the appellant however I find that the said remuneration received by the partner from the firm is according to the partnership deed and the work done by him for the business of the firm. This has nothing to do with the persons employed by the partner in his personal capacity. Further, the partner of the firm is not liable to employ workers for the purpose of earning income by the firm. The liability to incur such expenditure lies with the firm only. Hence, the expenditure incurred by the appellant on behalf of the firm in the form of employing workers to help in the business of the firm cannot be allowed in the name of the appellant. Accordingly, in my considered opinion, the claim of such expenditure amounting to ₹ 1,80,000/- claimed by the appellant against the remuneration received by him as partner of the firm has been correctly disallowed. The case laws relied upon by the appellant are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oyees from the remuneration of the partnership firms. We find the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO, the reason of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that when the remuneration paid to the employees has not been doubted, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) cannot alter the nature of expenditure. Further the AO in assessee s own case for the preceding and subsequent assessment years has accepted such remuneration to the employees as an allowable expenditure although the assessments have been completed u/s. 143 (1). It is also his submission that in another partners case such remuneration was allowed by CIT(A) as an allowable expenditure and the appeal by the revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal on account of low tax effect. 10. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. As mentioned earlier the revenue in the preceding and subsequent years has accepted such remuneration to the employees as an allowable expenditure from the remuneration from the partnership firms which has been taxed as business income. It is also an admitted fact that in case of anothe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumentary evidence in support of his claim that the premises was vacated by Sinclair Knight Merz consulting (India) Pvt.Ltd, the AO computed the income from house property as under:- Rent from April 2010 to September 2010 ₹ 1,40,000/- p.m. x 6 ₹ 8,40,000/- Rent from October 2010 to March 2011 ₹ 90,000/- p.m. x 6 ₹ 5,40,000/- Gross Rent ₹ 13,80,000/- Less House Tax ₹ 13,56,100/- Less Deduction u/s. 24 A ₹ 4,06,830/- Income from house property ₹ 9,49,270/- The AO accordingly made addition of ₹ 5,25,000/- to the income of the assessee under the head income from house property. 13. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO by observing as un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
