2015 (2) TMI 406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....996 to 2000-2001. 2. The following substantial questions of law have been framed for consideration in these appeals :-         a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee as time barred?       b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction claimed by the appellant u/s 40 (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not justifiable?      c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....006 and arrived at the net taxable income by treating 40% of total consulting charges as net profit of the appellant and allowed interest on capital account of the partners. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim for expenditure towards payment of remuneration to partners under Section 40 (b). 5. Aggrieved against the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against all the orders disallowing the assessee's claim for expenditure towards payment of remuneration to the partners under Section 40 (b). However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeals by order dated 29.08.2006, confirming the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and this Court is not concerned with the said aspect. Though three questions of law have been raised for consideration in these appeals, in view of the order that is to be passed in this appeals, this Court is not going into any of the question of law at the present time. 10. Even at the very outset we find that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal is highly prejudicial to the interest of the appellant/assessee inasmuch as the Tribunal having decided not to proceed with the matter on the ground of condonation of delay, cannot unilaterally decide the appeals on merits, more so when the appellant/assessee was not given proper opportunity to contest the matter in the main appeals on merits. The order of the Tribunal is also not in consona....