9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the contents of supplementary partnership deed with copy thereof on record, original was returned to the assessee s counsel. We are of the considered view that the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are covered in favour of assessee. Hence, the disallowance of interest capital and remuneration from the allowable profit under Section 10AA, is deleted. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow full relief to the assessee. Hence, grounds No. 1 to 4 of the appeal are allowed. - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Aditya Nemani, C.A. For the Department : Shri S.M. Keshkamat, CIT-DR ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 20/02/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1 On the facts and the circumstances of the case and as per law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. AR of the assessee submits that there was no deliberate or intentional delay in filing appeal rather for the facts explained above. The assessee is not going to be benefitted. The assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity is provided to the assessee. The assessee has not taken any recourse of law against the impugned order except of filing this appeal. Therefore, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed for condoning the delay. 3. On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue submits that the Bench may take appropriate decision to condone the delay as per law. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and find that there is no deliberate delay or malafide on the part of assessee in causing delay. The delay is only of 38 days which may not be fatal to the revenue. The revenue is not going to be suffered if they have merit in their favour. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the parties, we find that the assessee has shown reasonable cause for condoning the delay, therefore, the delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest or remuneration by invoking provisions of Section 40B of the Act. The assessee also relied on various case laws including decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT Vs. Alidhra Taxspin Engineers and another in Tax appeal No. 265 of 2017 dated 02/05/2017, decision of Surat Tribunal in ACIT Vs Mukta Enterprise (2018) 100 taxmann.com 44 (Surat-Trib), ACIT Vs Kiran Jewellery ITA No. 192 and 193/Srt/2017. 7. The reply of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer by referring various case laws that as per provisions of Section 40B of the Act, the payments of interest @ 12% in capital or partners and remuneration to the working of partner is payable. The assessee firm has not made any payment thereof to partners nor made any provisions of liability. The Assessing Officer reduced the amount of interest and remuneration from the computation of business profit allowable for deduction under Section 10AA of the Act thereby disallowed Rs. 4.38 crores. 8. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions and reiterated a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the basis of aforesaid submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is in fact squarely covered in favour of assessee. 11. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the assessee before the Assessing Officer claimed that a notarized supplementary deed was prepaid. Copy of such notarized deed was never shown or filed before the lower authorities. 12. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on the various case laws relied by the ld. AR of the assessee. There is no dispute that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 10AA of the Act. Further the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 7.61 crores during the year. The Assessing Officer disallowed the part of claim by taking a view that the assessee has not charged any interest on capital contribution and remunerations to its partner. The Assessing Officer worked out the disallowance of interest on capital of partner and remuneration and restricted the claim of deduction u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
