9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 40A(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the ground that they were excessive and unreasonable. The following table shows the amounts claimed and allowed: Mathura Prasad Dhoomimal Claimed Allowed 1980-81 1981-82 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; from Mandi and factories, etc., and dealing for out-station sale &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 35 years M. Com. His work is supply of goods to dealing parties from godown. &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the rival submissions. We find that originally under a partnership deed dated 12-9-1975 the firm consisted of six partners including the aforesaid three partners. For reasons disclosed in the assessee's reply dated 4-2-1980, namely, the promulgation of the U.P. Essential Articles and Things (Restriction on Grant and Supply to Unplanned Families) (Order 1976), these persons vide notices dated 1-9-1976 retired from the said partnership. Thereafter, a fresh partnership deed was executed on 4-10-1976 with effect from 1-10-1976 with only Durga Prasad and Jagdish Prasad as partners with 50 per cent share each. The aforesaid three persons also executed separate but similar agreements on 4-10-1976 under which they were to get the following perce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the qualifications, etc., of these three persons mentioned above and which were taken into consideration by the ITO, the assessee had also mentioned in its reply dated 4-2-1980 that these persons had to perform some more duties like collection of money from parties and booking of orders for future supply of goods due to the reason that they were young as compared to the remaining two partners. We find that at the time when these three persons were partners in the assessee-firm they were having the same share as the surviving partners even though the surviving partners are old. Therefore, the fact that these three persons were not working full time but only part-time, would not be material. It is, no doubt, true that strictly speaking, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons and experience of these persons, the duties performed by them and the salaries payable to them in terms of the agreements executed by them individually along with the other facts and circumstances referred to above. We are, therefore, of the view that there was no justification whatsoever for the income-tax authorities to make and sustain the disputed disallowances. We hold accordingly. 5. The only other ground relates to the disallowance of miscellaneous expenses amounting to Rs. 1,000 for each of the assessment years in question out of Rs. 2,097 claimed for the assessment year 1980-81 and Rs. 13,111 claimed for the assessment year 1981-82. The ITO made the disallowance for want of details and because the expenses were unvouched. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
