9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owance out of claimed remuneration made deserves to be deleted. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out at assessee's office premises on 06.10.2006 wherein the assessee admitted unaccounted income of Rs. 20,00,000/- for the AY 2006-07. In the Return of Income, the assessee showed the surrendered amount as part of its income and claimed remuneration of Rs. 5,01,680/- from such total income u/s 40(b)(v) of the Act which was allowed by the Assessing Officer. According to the CIT, if the sum of Rs. 20 lacs additionally declared by the assessee as income which falls u/s 69A of the Act is reduced, then the Profit & Loss account gets converted into net loss and the remuneration to partners allowable u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DCIT v. New Umiya Vijay Saw Mill in ITA No.2447/Ahd/2012, order dated 30.06.2014, wherein the Tribunal held that since at the time of survey, the assessee disclosed the entire income as business income, the Assessing Officer was not justified in bifurcating the same into the income from other sources and income from business or profession. Therefore, the order passed by the CIT(A) treating the disclosed income of the assessee as business income and allowing partners' remuneration amounting to Rs. 13 lacs u/s 40(b) of the Act is upheld. Thus, it was the contention of the AR that the order of the Assessing Officer also supported by the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal. 6. On the other hand, the DR supported the order of CIT. 7. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer is directed that the remuneration allowed to the partners shall be restricted to Rs. 50,000/-. The excess remuneration claimed is to be added back to the assessee's income." 8. Thus, we find that, in the instant case, CIT(A) vide its order dated 21.10.2010 has already decided the issue which was considered by the CIT in the impugned order purportedly passed u/s 263 of the Act. As the order of the Assessing Officer had already merged with the order of the CIT(A) in respect of the issue of head under which income disclosed in the course of the survey is assessable and consequently allowance of remuneration to partners, in our considered view, the CIT had no justification to decide the very same issue again u/s 263 of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
