9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08 respectively and in supplementary deed it has discussed the matter relating to clause 13 clause 11 of deed of partnership dated 01.04.2007 (notarized on 24.03.2008). Therefore, it is clearly indicate that the supplementary deed talks only about clauses of original partnership deed dated 01.04.2007 and in view of the supplementary partnership deed, partners shall be entitled to draw salary or remuneration as per the limit laid down u/s 40(b) of the Act and the ld. PCIT failed to advert the facts placed before him by the assessee. Therefore, we are not agree with the findings of the ld. PCIT and the revisionary action taken by the ld. PCIT cannot be sustained and we set aside the order passed by the PCIT hence grounds taken by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of assessee, the ld. AO has passed an order u/s 143(3) for the A.Y. 2012-13 by determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 26,91,190/- as against the return of income of Rs. 22,37,270/-. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT called for assessment records and invoke the jurisdictional revisionary power provided u/s 263 of the Act. During the course of examination of the record, the ld. PCIT has noticed that assessee firm has paid remuneration to the partners in excess limit prescribed u/s 40(b) of the Act. The extract portion of excess remuneration paid to the partners as alleged by ld. PCIT is as follows: Name of the Partner Annual Remuneration as per Clause 13 of partnership deed Remune ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... four partners of Rs. 15,36,000/- is not in accordance with the terms of partnership deed that was effective from 01.04.2007. We would like to inform your good-self that the partnership deed as mentioned earlier along with the Supplemental Deed made on 04 April 2008 was placed on record as required by then Assessing Officer during scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of the act. The matter was raised during scrutiny assessment and proper explanation and required Deed of Partnership along with the Supplemental Deed as discussed above was furnished to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The Supplemental Deed clearly discusses the matters relating to clause 13 and clause 11 of page 6 of the Deed of Partnership dated 24 ' March, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nibhas Chandra Sinha @ Rs. 10,000/- p.m Namita Sinha @ Rs. 10,000/- p.m. Mousumi Singha Roy @ Rs. 10,000/- p.m. Rakesh Sinha @ Rs. 10,000/- p.m. Therefore, the amended partnership deed dated 04/04/2008. now submitted by the assessee vide his letter dated 14/03/2017 could not be taken on record as not being available in the assessment records because as per the definition of record given in the provision of section 263. record shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all record; relating *o any proceedings under this Act available at the time of examination by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order. 5. Aggrieved the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal raising 3 grounds of appeal out of which ground no. 3 is general in nature and remaining grounds are challenging the invocation of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and also challenging the direction of the setting aside the assessment order. 6. At the time of hearing, ld. AR submitted before us that the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law as the assessee has submitted a copy of supplementary partnership deed dated 04.04.2008 before the ld. AO to prove the fact that how enhancement amount of remuneration paid to its partners taken place and copy of the same was also filed before the ld. PCIT to controvert the fact. However, the ld. PCIT did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Further on perusal of the impugned order, we noticed that the assessee has filed a copy of supplementary partnership deed dated 04.04.2008 before the ld. PCIT and in the said supplementary deed it had clearly discussed the matter relating to Clause 13 and Clause 11 at page 6 of the deed of partnership dated notarized on 24.03.2008 (executed on 01.04.2007) were contradictory in nature, therefore, Clause 13 of the said deed was deleted. Accordingly, the alleged excess remuneration of Rs. 15,36,000/- paid to the working partners are allowable according to the ld. AR. He further contended that copy of the said supplementary partnership deed was placed before the AO at the time of scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
