AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 361
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "i. That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. PCIT, Burdwan erred in setting aside the order dated 14.07.2014 u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 passed by the AO holding the same to be erroneous so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue in terms of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The order, so passed, is unjustified and therefore need to be quashed. ii. That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. PCIT, Burdwan erred in determining a sum of Rs. 10,56,000/- to be excess remuneration paid to the partners in terms of the provisions of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. iii. The as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... so while framing the assessment order therefore, ld. PCIT reviewed the assessment order passed by the ld. AO which according to him was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Ld. PCIT has issued statutory notice upon the assessee in relation to the above facts in response to such show cause notice, the AR of the assessee has submitted a written reply stating as follows: " We are in receipt of the above mentioned notice wherein it is mentioned that the partners salary /remuneration to its four partners of Rs. 15,36,000/- is not in accordance with the terms of partnership deed that was effective from 01.04.2007. We would like to inform your good-self that the partnership deed as mentioned earlier along with the Supple....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2008, on examination of the en ire assessment records, no such amended partnership deed is found to be submitted during the course of assessment proceeding. No explanation in this regard is also found in the assessment records as claimed by the assessee that the same was submitted by him during assessment proceedings to me satisfaction of the AO. In the assessment records, only one partnership deed dated 01.04.2007 is found and as per this partnership deed, amount of remuneration payable to each partner is as under:- Nibhas Chandra Sinha @ Rs. 10,000/- p.m Namita Sinha @ Rs. 10,000/- p.m. Mousumi Singha Roy @ Rs. 10,000/- p.m. Rakesh Sinha @ Rs. 10,000/- p.m. Therefore, the amended partnership deed dated 04/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act amounting to Rs.10,56,000/- shall be disallowed. 7. Accordingly, the original assessment order dated 14/07/2014 is set aside limited to the issue discussed in previous para no. 6. Other additions made in the original assessment order dated 14/07/2014 as reproduced in para no.1 shall remain intact and shall be added again while computing assessed income of the assessee in the revised order. 5. Aggrieved the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal raising 3 grounds of appeal out of which ground no. 3 is general in nature and remaining grounds are challenging the invocation of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and also challenging the direction of the setting aside the assessment order. 6. At the time of hearing, l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 10,56,000/- Further on perusal of the impugned order, we noticed that the assessee has filed a copy of supplementary partnership deed dated 04.04.2008 before the ld. PCIT and in the said supplementary deed it had clearly discussed the matter relating to Clause 13 and Clause 11 at page 6 of the deed of partnership dated notarized on 24.03.2008 (executed on 01.04.2007) were contradictory in nature, therefore, Clause 13 of the said deed was deleted. Accordingly, the alleged excess remuneration of Rs. 15,36,000/- paid to the working partners are allowable according to the ld. AR. He further contended that copy of the said supplementary partnership deed was placed before the AO at the time of scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. But....