9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, we find no infirmity in the finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and the action of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is considered and the appeal of the department considering the above finding on fact placed by the assessee is considered and ground for disallowance raised by revenue is dismissed and thus the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. - ITA No. 65/JP/2021 - - - Dated:- 5-5-2022 - Shri Sandeep Gosain, JM And Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, AM For the Assessee : Sh. Mukesh Agarwal (CA) For the Revenue : Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, A.M. This appeal is filed by revenue and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 17/05/2021 [here in after (NFAC)] for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined from the Assessing Officer and the observations of the Assessing Officer on this issue is extracted herein below. Kindly refer to you letter no. 180 dated 20.10.2021 on the subject cited above. 2. In connection to the same it is submitted that in the case of M/s Anant Auto, Beawar, PAN: AAIFA7886), for the A.Y. 2014-15 assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 19.12.2016 on total income of Rs. 21,01,746/- by disallowing various expenses amounting to Rs. 40,000/-. Thereafter, Revenue Audit raised an audit objection in this case. 3. A notice u/s 154 dated 06.07.2018 was issued to the assessee for rectifying the mistake, after taking necessary approval from 0/o the JCIT Range-2, Ajmer. However, no r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal is maintainable and the contention of the ld. AR is not considered. 8. Even though, the limit is below threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT, this appeal is maintainable as there was an audit objection on the issue and therefore, the appeal is decided on merit. 9. The assessment in this case for Assessment Year 2014-15 was made u/s 143(3) dated 19.12.2006. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the remuneration amounting to Rs. 8,80,000/- was allowed to partner but Rs. 3,00,000/- is maximum remuneration limit as per IT. Act, 1961. Thus, the excess remuneration amounting to Rs. 5,80,000/- is not allowable and therefore, a notice u/s 151 of the Act was issued to the assessee firm on 06.07.2018 which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity to the appellant, it is noted that the AO has very clearly stated in the rectification order as well in the remand report that notice under section 154 was issued and duly served on the appellant. During the remand proceedings also, the opportunity of being heard was provided and appellant was heard on 30/05/2019. In compliance to the same a supplementary copy of partnership deed was also submitted by the appellant before the AO. The appellant also in its response submitted pursuant to the remand report of the AO, has not objected that the opportunity of being heard was not provided by the AO. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the first ground raised by the appellant and the same is accordingly dismissed. 4.2 The secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ship seed has not been looked at by the AO. The copy of the supplementary Deed of Partnership dated 1/4/2011 is also submitted before me which clearly states that the maximum remuneration which can be paid to the working partners is Rs.30 lacs. Therefore, I find that remuneration of Rs 8,80,000/- allowed to partners during the year under appeal is within the limit duly authorized by the Partnership Deed as well as section 40(b)(v) of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, this ground of the appellant is allowed. 12. Since the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee, the department has preferred this appeal on the solely ground of deletion of an excess payment of remuneration of Rs. 5,80,000/-, paid to the partners in contravention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
