TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon this issue, this ground has not emanated from the order of the CIT(A). Before us also, this ground was not pressed. In view of the above, this ground is rejected as not pressed. 4. The second ground challenges the sustenance of the addition of Rs. 39,100 being the remuneration paid to Shri Pawan Kumar Paharia, the partner of the assessee-firm. The assessee-firm had declared the income of Rs. 14,660. The AO noticed that the firm had paid remuneration of Rs. 39,100 to Shri Pawan Kumar Paharia. The AO issued notice under s. 148 and he made the addition of Rs. 39,100. This was done only on the ground that the learned CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance for the asst. yr. 1998-99. 5. The addition made by the AO by disallowing remunera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AO has made reference to the order of the learned CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1998-99 for making the disallowance. The learned CIT(A) has passed sketchy order and he has followed the order of the learned CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1998-99 for confirming the action of the AO. On going through the order of the learned CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1998-99, it is found that he accepted the argument of the Authorised Representative of the assessee that the remuneration is not disallowable on the ground that the partner represents HUF. However, the learned CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance in that year by observing as under: "Coming to the another of making this disallowance that Sh. Pawan Kumar Pahadia is not a working partner. I am entirely in agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm at different place. If he devotes time and remains engaged in the business of the firm, it cannot be said that he is not actively engaged in the business of the firm. It may be pointed out that the same CIT(A) has upheld the action of the AO in allowing remuneration to Shri Sunil Kumar Navetia who too was residing at Calcutta and was supervising the affairs of the firm at Ghaziabad. The only reason for allowing remuneration to that partner is that the telephone number of Calcutta belonged to him. So far as other partner, namely, Shri Pawan Kumar Pahadia in whose case remuneration has been disallowed is concerned, in my view, the difference made by the learned CIT(A) cannot be appreciated. From the documents contained in the paper book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
