Highway Filling Station, Solan V. ITO, Baddi

ITA 13/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51447 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH ANAND
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Business income; Agreed addition; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES SMC CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.13 /CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 M/S HIGHWAY FILLING STATION VS. THE ITO, C/O S.K.ANAND & COMPANY, BADDI NEW DELHI PAN NO. AAAFH 7265 D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURESH ANAND RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K.SAINI DATE OF HEARING : 23.08.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.08.2011 ORDER THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), SHIMLA DATED 11.10.2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-0 6 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143 OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATIN G EITHER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE OR THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIONS WHICH ARE BAD IN LAW OR ON FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 60,000/- IN TRADING RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON' BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BANTA SINGH KARTAR SINGH [125 ITR 239 (P&H)] WHICH IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,25,908/- TOWARDS SALARY AND INTEREST TO WORKING PARTNERS U/S 40(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON T HE SUSPICION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES . 3. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED AFTER A DELAY OF 3 D AYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FI LING THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 2.11.2010. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAV E SENT THE APPEAL PAPERS THROUGH SPEED POST ON 28.12.2010. THE SAID PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT OF SPEED POST IS ENCLOSED ALONG WITH APPLIC ATION. THE SAID APPEAL HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON 4.1.2011 BY THE REGISTRY. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE DELAY OF THR EE DAYS IS HEREBY CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. 4. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING GEN ERAL, IS DISMISSED. 5. THE ISSUE RAISED BY WAY OF GROUND NOS.2 & 3 THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 60,000/- AND ALSO THE ADDITION MADE U/S 40(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FIRM IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF RUNNING OF PETROL PUMP. THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE FIRST YEAR OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FIRM CONSTITUTED OF TWO PARTNERS, MRS BALWINDER KAUR AND MS. SIMRAN, CONSTI TUTED VIDE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP DATED 21.7.2004. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECL ARED TOTAL SALES OF RS. 2.89 CRORES ON WHICH GP AT RS. 5,22,085 WAS SHOWN A ND THE GP RATE DECLARED WAS 1.80%. THE RESULTS SHOWN BY THE ASSES SEE WERE COMPARED WITH THE BUSINESS RESULTS SHOWN BY M/S SURINDER TRA NSPORT AND 3 ENGINEERING COMPANY, NALAGARH WHICH WAS ALSO RUNNIN G A PETROL PUMP AT NALAGARH AND HAD DECLARED GP OF 2.1% IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR LOW MARGIN OF GP AS IN VIEW OF THE SALE RATES BEING FIXED BY THE GOVERN MENT AND THE PURCHASES BEING MADE ON SAME RATES BY THE PARTIES. THE ASSES SEE EXPLAINED THAT BECAUSE OF WASTAGE AND THIS BEING THE FIRST YEAR OF BUSINESS, THE GP WAS ON A LOWER SCALE. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE AFTER DISCUSSION AGREED TO AN ADDITION OF RS. 60,000/- SUBJECT TO NON LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE PARTNERS H AD EXECUTED A PARTNERSHIP DEED ON 21.7..2004 IN WHICH THERE WAS N O PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF SALARY AND INTEREST TO THE PARTNERS. IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENDITURE ON AC COUNT OF PARTNER SALARY AT RS. 60,000/- AND PARTNERS INTEREST @ RS. 65,908/-. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY DEED WHICH WAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED ON 21.7.2004 UNDER WHICH THE SALARY @ RS. 5000/- TO EACH WORKING PARTNERS AND INTEREST @ 12% ON THE CAPITAL OF THE PARTNERS WAS PROVIDED. AS BOTH THE DEEDS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN EXE CUTED ON THE SAME DATE I.E. 21.7.2004, AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER THIS RAISE DOUBT ABOUT THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY PARTNER SHIP DEED . THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS INCORPORATED AT PAGES 2 & 3 OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE SUPPLEMENTA RY DEED WAS EXECUTED AFTER 31.3.2005 AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS AN AUTHENTIC DOCUMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. FURTHER, THE RE WAS ONE WITNESS IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY DEED AND IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER THAT IF THE SUPPLEMENTARY DEED WAS EXECUTED ON THE SAME DATE I.E. 21.7.2004, IT WOULD HAVE CONTAINED THE SIGNATURES OF THE WITNESSE S WHO WERE AVAILABLE AND HAD SIGNED THE ORIGINAL PARTNERSHIP DEED ON THE SAME DATE AS WITNESS. 4 IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIO N OF RS. 60,000/- AND RS. 65,908/- IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 0(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT HAD AGREED TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 60,000/- ONLY AND THERE WOULD B E NO OTHER ADDITION. THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND U PHOLDING THE ADDITION IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN BANTA SINGH KARTA R SINGH [125 ITR 239 (P&H)]. IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND ISSUE OF DEDUCTIO N CLAIMED U/S 40(B) OF THE ACT, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 11. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSION S OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE UNDERSIGNED. THE ORIGINAL PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 21.7.2004 HAD N O CLAUSE FOR SALARY AND INTEREST TO PARTNERS. THE SA ME WAS PROVIDED THROUGH A SUPPLEMENTARY DEED DATED 21.7.2004. 11.1 IN ORDINARY COURSE, THE LOOPHOLE IN THE ORIGIN AL PARTNERSHIP DEED COULD HAVE BEEN PLUGGED BY WRITIN G A FRESH PARTNERSHIP DEED IF THE SAME WAS DETECTED THE SAME DAY. THERE WAS NO NEED OF WRITING A SUPPLEMENTARY DEED ON THE SAME DAY. MOREOVER, THE WITNESS IN THE ORIGINAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY DEED SHO ULD HAVE BEEN COMMON. IN THIS CASE ONLY ONE WITNESS SHRI JAGDISH CHAND IS COMMON. 11.2 SECONDLY, THE DATE AT THE BACKSIDE OF THE SUPP LEMENTARY DEED IS 15.7.2005, WHICH PROVES THE POINT OF THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT WAS AN AFTER THOUGH. KEE PING IN VIEW THESE FACTS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY AND PA RTNERS U/S 40(B) AT RS. 1,25,908/- IS CONFIRMED AND THESE GADS ARE DISMISSED. 7. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED TH AT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED TO THE ADDITION ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ONLY ADDI TION OF RS. 60,000/- BE MADE AND THERE WOULD BE NO OTHER ADDITION AND OTHER ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(B) OF THE AC T. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE STRESSED THAT THE SO CALLED AGREED ADDITIO N OF RS. 60,000/- MERITS 5 TO BE DELETED. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE LETT ER FILED ON 31.10.2007 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD JUSTIFIED ITS TRADING RESULTS AND THEREAFTER A VERBAL PROPOSAL WA S MADE FOR THE SURRENDER OF RS. 60,000/-. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACE D RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN A.S.VANNIA NADAR & SONS V ACIT [62 ITD 48(MADRAS)]. IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND ADDITION UNDER SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE PARTNERSHIP D EED IS DATED 21.7.2004 AND THE SUPPLEMENTARY DEED IS ALSO DATED 21.7.2004 FOR WHICH THE STAMP PAPERS WERE PURCHASED ON 15.7.2004. WHEN POINTED O UT AS TO THE CUTTING ON THE REVERSE OF THE STAMP PAPER, THE LD. AR FOR T HE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THERE MAY BE SOME CUTTING. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE STRESSED THAT THE AGREED ADDITION OF RS. 60,000/- WAS MADE BECAUS E OF LESSER GP DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS COMPARED TO THE OTHER C ONCERN. IN RESPECT OF THE EXECUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP AND SUPPLEMENTARY DEED, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE STARTED ON 13 .8.2004 WHILE PARTNERSHIP DEED WAS DATED 21.7.2004 AND SUPPLEMENT ARY DEED WAS WRITTEN ON 15.7.2005. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. 8. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD AND THE DOCUMENTS F URNISHED, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS SHOW CAUSED AS TO THE LOW GP RATE D ECLARED BY IT IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING PETROL PUMP. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED IN RESPECT OF THE LOW GP DECLARED IN VIEW OF THE FACT SITUATIO N WHERE THE SALE RATES ARE DECLARED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PURCHASES AR E BEING MADE AT THE SAME RATES BY DIFFERENT PARTIES. THE TRADING RESUL TS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED THE GP RATE OF 1.80% AS COMPARE D TO THE GP RATE OF 2.1% SHOWN BY THE ANOTHER CONCERN IN THE AREA. THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO 6 JUSTIFY ITS RESULTS VIDE VARIOUS LETTERS FILED BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LAST LETTER WAS FILED ON 31.10.2007. HOWEV ER, SURRENDER OF RS. 60,000/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS. 9. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT HAD MADE THE SAID SURRENDER SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT NO OTHER ADDITION WOU LD BE MADE. I FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAID PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PERUSA L OF THE LETTER FILED ON 31.10.2007 REVEALS THAT THE FIRST EXPLANATION BY TH E ASSESSEE WAS IN REGARD TO THE TRADING RESULTS SHOWN BY IT AS COMPARED TO T HE TRADING RESULTS SHOWN BY M/S SURINDER TRANSPORT AND ENGINEERING COMPANY. THE SECOND PART OF THE EXPLANATION WAS IN RESPECT OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY DEED EXECUTED AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES THEREOF. THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF TWO ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONE OF TRADING ADDITION AND SECOND OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE. THE AGREED ADDITION W AS IN CONNECTION WITH TRADING RESULTS. IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT BY MAK ING THE SAID AGREED ADDITION, NO OTHER ADDITION WAS TO BE MADE AS DISAL LOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF PARTNER SALARY AND INTEREST IS RS. 1,25,908/-. FUR THER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM BY ADDUCING ANY EV IDENCE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE LD. AR ON A.S.VANNIA NADAR & SONS V ACIT (SUPRA) UNDER WHICH THE SURRENDER OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 LACS W AS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS MADE IN THE PAINFUL CIRCUMSTANCES. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT BEFORE ACCEP TING THE ASSESSEES OFFER FOR ADDITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HA VE MADE ENQUIRES AND FIND OUT THE ACTUAL ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASS ESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH ENQUIRIES BEING MADE, THE MATTER WA S RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATI ON. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE ABOVE SA ID FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN A.S.VANNIA NADAR & SONS V ACIT (SUPRA) AND WHY THE MATTER 7 SHOULD NOT BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED SUCH A DECISION. IN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH ERE IS NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SURRENDER OF RS. 60,000/- WAS TO COVER UP THE ADDITIONS TOTALLY I.E. ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING AND DI SALLOWANCE U/S 40(B) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECOR D ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE ITS STAND. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THE EXPLANAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT STAND PROVED. THE ADDITION OF RS. 60,000/- ADM ITTEDLY BEING MADE ON A SURRENDER OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS UPHELD. THE GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD ARE THUS DISMISSED 10. THE GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAIN ST THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PARTNERS SALARY AND I NTEREST UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESS EE FIRM WAS CONSTITUTED VIDE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 21.7.2004. THE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED IS ANNEXED AT PAGES 9 TO 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN THE ABOVE SAID PARTNERSHIP DEED, THERE IS NO CLAUSE FOR THE PROVI SION OF REMUNERATION OF THE PARTNER OR THE INTEREST PAID TO THE PARTNERS. D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO HOW IT HAS CLAIMED PARTNERS SALARY OF RS. 60,000/- AND PARTNERS INTEREST OF RS. 65,908/- IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CLAUSE IN THE PARTNERSHIP DEED. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SAID CLAUSE WAS PROVIDED VIDE SUPPLEME NTARY DEED EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AFTER EXECUTION OF THE PARTNERS HIP DEED. THE SAID SUPPLEMENTARY DEED IS CLAIMED TO BE EXECUTED ON 21. 7.2004. HOWEVER, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER BEING WITHOUT ANY CAUSE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IF THE SAID LAPSE 8 HAD BEEN DETECTED ON THE SAME DATE I.E. 21.7.2004, THE FRESH DEED WOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ON THE SAME DATE ITSELF AND THERE WAS NO NEED TO EXECUTE A SUPPLEMENTARY DEED PURPORTEDLY DATED 21.7.2004. THE COPY OF THE SAID SUPPLEMENTARY DEED IS PLACED AT PAGE 12 OF THE PAPE R BOOK. THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID DOCUMENT REVEALS THE SAME TO BE EXECUTE D ON 21.7.2004 AND IS SIGNED BY BOTH THE PARTNERS WITH WITNESSES OF ONE S HRI JAGDHISH CHAND, NALAGARH, H.P. THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE SAID STAMP PAPER REVEALS THE DATE OF PURCHASE TO BE 15.7.2005 / 15.7.2004. THERE IS A CUTTING ON THE AFORESAID STAMP PAPER I.E. DATE HAS BEEN OVERWRITTE N. THE ARTICLES OF PARTNERSHIP DEED BETWEEN TWO PARTNERS WERE EXECUTED ON 21.7.2004 AND THE FIRM CAME INTO EXISTENCE W.E.F. SAID DATE AND I T IS SO MENTIONED IN CLAUSE 2 OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ON RECORD THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE STAMP PAPE R PURCHASED FOR PARTNERSHIP DEED AND WHEN POINTED OUT DURING THE CO URSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SHOWED HIS INABILIT Y VIS-A-VIS THE SAME. FURTHER, THE SAID PARTNERSHIP DEED IS WITNESSED BY TWO PERSONS ONE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR AND THE SECOND SHRI JAGDISH CHAND. HO WEVER, THE SUPPLEMENTARY DEED IS WITNESSED BY ONLY ONE OF THE PARTY I.E. SHRI JAGDISH CHAND. FURTHER, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT S TAMP PAPER FOR WRITING THE SUPPLEMENTARY DEED WAS PURCHASED ON 15.7.2004 A ND THE SUPPLEMENTARY DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 21.7.2004 DOES N OT INSPIRE CONFIDENCE AS THE SAID PAPER IS PURCHASED ON A DATE ANTERIOR TO THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED BETWEEN THE PART IES I.E. 21.7.2004. THE PRESUMPTION UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS THAT TH E PARTNERS PRE- PURCHASED THE STAMP PAPER FOR SUPPLEMENTARY DEED ON A DATE WHEN EVEN THE PARTNERSHIP HAD NOT COME INTO EXISTENCE. FURTH ER, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE PARTIES PRE-ASSUMED THAT THE SAID SUPPLEME NTARY DEED WOULD BE REQUIRED TO EXECUTE THE CLAUSE VIS-A-VIS IN CONNECT ION WITH THE PROVISIONS 9 OF PARTNERS SALARY AND PARTNERS INTEREST, I FIND NO MERIT IN THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE ABOVE SAID STAMP PAPER WAS PURCHASED ON A LATER DATE THAN THE DATE OF ITS EXECUTION AND THE SAME IS AN AFTER THOUGHT. FURTH ER, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT, THE COPIES OF THE PART NERSHIP DEED AND / OR SUPPLEMENTARY DEED IN THE YEAR OF ITS EXECUTION ARE TO BE ENCLOSED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE SAID SUPPLEMENTARY DEE D WAS NOT FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PARTNERS SALARY AND PART NERS INTEREST IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT. THE G ROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010. SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH AUGUST, 2010 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR