TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 618
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 34,61,241/- earned by the assessee from the partnership firm assessed as business income u/s. 28 (v) of the IT Act, 1961. 3. Facts of the case, in brief are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary from partnership firm house property and other sources. He filed his return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 46,53,350/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noted that the assessee has claimed business expense of Rs. 1,80,000/- against remuneration of Rs. 34,61,241/- received from the firm M/s. Wenger & Co. He asked the assessee to justify the allowability of such expenses against remuneration. The assessee vide his reply dated 20-12-2013 submitted that remuneration from partners....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h expenditure lies with the firm only. Hence, the expenditure incurred by the appellant on behalf of the firm in the form of employing workers to help in the business of the firm cannot be allowed in the name of the appellant. Accordingly, in my considered opinion, the claim of such expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,80,000/- claimed by the appellant against the remuneration received by him as partner of the firm has been correctly disallowed. The case laws relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable on facts of the case. The same is confirmed in appeal. Ground raised in appeal is dismissed." 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is not justified. 8. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly relied on the order of the AO and the CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the AO in the instant case disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- being the expenditure claimed by the assessee towards salary to two employees from the remuneration of the partnership firms. We find the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO, the reason of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allowable expenditure. The various other decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case law compilation also supports his case. Further the rule of consistency also is in favour of the assessee, since in the preceding and subsequent years such salary paid to employees were allowed as business expenditure from the salary income received from the partnership firm. No proceedings u/s. 147 or 263 have been initiated in subsequent years after the order of the CIT(A), rejecting the claim of the assessee. In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the disallowance made by the AO. Accordingly the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is set aside and the groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... House Tax Rs. 13,56,100/- Less Deduction u/s. 24 A Rs. 4,06,830/- Income from house property Rs. 9,49,270/- The AO accordingly made addition of Rs. 5,25,000/- to the income of the assessee under the head income from house property. 13. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO by observing as under :- "3.3 I have considered the submissions of the appellant, however, as the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of the claim that the premises was vacated by the said tenant, the contention has been rejected. During the appeal proceedings also the appellant has not justified his contentions hence, I am forced to accept the Assessing Officer's stand. The ground raised in appeal i....