9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer disallowed both the claims under s. 40(b). The first appellate authority, however, accepted the assessee's plea that both the deductions are allowable because the partners who received salary and interest represented their respective HUFs in the capacity of `Karta'. Interest was said to be allowable on the ground that the partners in question had invested their individual money. Similar view was taken by the first appellate authority with respect to salary. There were four partners in the firm, out of whom three, namely, Sh. Daya Nand, Dharamvir and Madan Lal have been paid salary for their personal services and two of them have been given interest on their personal investments. 3. The learned Departmental Representative has a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its consequent effect on the income of the HUF. We, therefore, find that the said decision does not help the assessee. The Tribunal has in the case of the assessee declined to allow salary as a deduction for asst. yr. 1982-83 vide order dt. 26th April, 1993 in ITA No. 33/Chd/90. We, therefore, adopt the same reasons and take a consistent view and consequently accept the Revenue's appeal so far as allowability of salary is concerned. 6. Therefore, ground No. 1 in both the appeals partly succeed—interest is held to be allowable whereas salary is held to be not deductible under s. 40(b). 7. Ground No. 2 in appeal for asst. yr. 1980-81 relates to the addition of Rs. 23,000 on account of unexplained cash credit. The Assessing Officer note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not possible to verify the facts mentioned therein. The learned Departmental Representative has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 1973 CTR (SC) 500 : (1972) 82 ITR 540 (SC). It has been held in that case that the apparent statement must be considered real until it was shown that there were reasons to believe that the apparent was not the real, in a case where a party relied on self-serving recitals in documents. The learned counsel has, in reply, submitted that the creditor had deposited the sum of Rs. 6,000 on 29th Oct., 1979 and another sum of Rs. 17,000 on 16th Nov., 1979. There were thereafter two withdrawals for Rs. 17,000 and Rs. 10,000 on 18th Sept., 1979. Then there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
