M/s Hot Millions, Chandigarh V. CIT (Central), Gurgaon

ITA 377/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95687 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MUKHI SH SHAMAN JAIN
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 263; 2; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND MRS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.374 TO 377/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 TO 2009-10 HOT MILLIONS VS. CIT(CENTRAL) SCO 196-197 GURGAON SECTOR 17-C CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AACFH5490D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. S.K. MUKHI SH. SHAMAN JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 16/09/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :17/11/2015 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA A.M. THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON DATED 26/03/2 013 , PASSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP F IRM ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF RESTAURANT AND FAST FOOD. ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPUGN ED ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS COMPLETED U/S 153A (L)(B) R.W.S 143(3) OF THE ACT. LATER ON LD. CIT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED WERE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE SINCE ON EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECO RDS IT WAS REVEALED THAT DURING THE IMPUGNED YEARS THERE WAS A CHANGE IN TH E CONSTITUTION OF THE FIRM, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED A CERTIFIED COPY OF REVISED INSTRUMENT OF PARTNERSHIP ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, AS A CO NSEQUENCE OF WHICH THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 184(4) OF THE ACT, AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 185 HAD BECOME APPLICABLE, DISENTITLING THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF INTEREST AND REMUNERATION PAID TO PART NERS DURING THESE YEARS. 2 NOTICE U/S 263 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPO NSE TO THE NOTICE THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DE ED WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 184 BEING DIRECTORY, THE DEFECT OF NOT FILI NG COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED WITH RETURN OF INCOME WAS A CURABLE DEFECT. THE ASS ESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE MERELY NOT FURNISHING A CERTIFI ED COPY OF THE DEED DID NOT MAKE THE ASSESSEE FIRM AN AOP, SINCE THE ONLY REQUI REMENT OF SECTION 184 IS THAT THE INSTRUMENT OF PARTNERSHIP MUST BE SIGNED BY ALL THE PARTNERS. 3. LD. CIT AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSES SUBMISSI ONS HELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE ST OF THE REVENUE AND DIRECTED THE AO TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 185 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND DISALLOW THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESS EE FIRM U/S 40 (B) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2006-07 TO AY 2008-09, BY HOLDING AT PAR A 3.4, 3.5, 4, 4.1 & 4.2 OF THE ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 3.4 IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153 A WHICH WAS PHOTOCOPY OF RETURN FILED U/S 139 OF INCOME TAX ACT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY ANY CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INSTRUMENT OF PARTNERSHIP AND NO CERTIFIED COPY WAS EVER MADE AVA ILABLE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE MERELY PROVIDED A PHOTOCOP Y OF INSTRUMENT OF PARTNERSHIP. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION IT IS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS ABOUT THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INSTRUMENT ACCOMPANYING T HE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH ARE DIRECTORY IN NATURE ARE NOT COMPLIED. 3.5 THE OTHER CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO CONSIDERED AND ARE REJECTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I) EVEN IF THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN DONE IN PRIOR Y EAR AS A FIRM, IT IS MANDATORY TO FILE THE CERTIFIED COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED WHENEVER THERE IS CHANGE IN CONSTITUTION OF THE FIRM, AND THEN ONLY I T CAN CONTINUE TO BE ASSESSED AS A FIRM. BUT IN THIS CASE, NO SUCH CERTIFIED COPY WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE 1 ST YEAR OF CHANGE IN PARTNERSHIP DEED NOR DURING THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. II) THE ONUS OF PROVING CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN LI ES ON THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY STATED THAT PARTNE RSHIP DEED HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT OR ALO NGWITH RETURN OF INCOME BUT NOT SUBMITTED ANY PROOF OF THE SAME. FOR THE SAKE O F DISCUSSION, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS HELD TO BE TRUE, THEN ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED COPY OF REVISED PARTNERSHIP DEED WHICH IS DULY CERTIFIED BY ALL PARTNERS . IN FACT AS PER THE RECORD OF THIS OFFICE, THERE IS A PARTNE RSHIP DEED ENCLOSED WITH DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT BUT T HE SAME IS NOT DULY CERTIFIED BY ALL THE PARTNERS AND HENCE IS IN VIOLATION OF SE CTION 84 (2) R.W.S 184(4) OF IT ACT, 1961 AND CANNOT BE TAKEN TO BE SUPPORTING ASSESSEE S CLAIM. 3 4.0 IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE C ONTENTION OF ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND HENCE, THE FIRM DOES NOT FULFILL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 184 OF IT ACT, 1961 TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION IN THE FORM OF INTEREST AND SALARY PAID TO PARTNERS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 185 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND DISALLOW THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE FIRM AS PROVIDED U/S 40(B) OF THE ACT. 4.1 THE CHART BELOW SHOWS SIMILAR DEFAULT COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10. A.Y. DATE OF ORDER AMOUNT OF A.O.S REMARKS INTEREST PAID TO PARTNERS SALARY PAID TO PARTNERS 2006-07 24.12.2010 13,11,443 6,00,000 1 ST YEAR OF CHANGE OF CONSTITUTION OF FIRM. NEITHER CERTIFIED COPY OF REVISED PARTNERSHIP DEED FILED DURING FILING OF RETURN NOR DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2007-08 24.12.2010 14,57,250 10,20,000 NEITHER CERT IFIED COPY OF REVISED PARTNERSHIP DEED FILED DURING FILING OF RETURN NOR DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2008-09 24.12.2010 13,68,919 24,70,000 NEITHER CERT IFIED COPY OF REVISED PARTNERSHIP DEED FILED DURING FILING OF RETURN NOR DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2009-10 24.12.2010 19,25,800 32,40,000 NEITHER CERT IFIED COPY OF REVISED PARTNERSHIP DEED FILED DURING FILING OF RETURN NOR DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4.2 AFTER BEING SATISFIED ABOUT THE ERRONEOUSNESS O F THE ORDER FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS, SIMILAR NOTICES WERE ISSUED U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN R ESPECT OF THESE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. SINCE THE DEFAULT CONTINUED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS TOO, THE ABOVE DECISION EQUALLY APPLIES TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED IN T HESE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE HELD ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF R EVENUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GIVE SIMILAR EFFECT TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 185 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT AND DISALLOW THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE FIRM AS PROVIDED U/S 40(B) OF THE AC T FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 TO ASSTT YEAR 2009- 10. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSE FILED THE PRES ENT APPEAL BEFORE US TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(CENTRAL) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOK ING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH IS VOID AB-INITIO AN D THEREBY HOLDING THE ORDERS UNDER SCRUTINY PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 AFTER CALLING FOR COMPLETE DETAILS AND AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND AND PERUSING THE CONCERNED PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(CENTRAL) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDI NG A WELL REASONED ORDERS BY THE A.O. PASSED UNDER SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS PRIMA FACIE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE ST OF THE REVENUE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES ON RECORD AND THEREBY THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(CENTRAL) IS PERVERSE AND THUS NEEDS TO BE QUASH ED BY THE INTERFERENCE OF THIS HONBLE BENCH. 3. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL T HE APPELLANT DISPUTES THE VERY INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS BAD IN LAW AND THEREBY SETTING A WELL VERSED ORDERS OF THE A.O . TO BE DECIDED AFRESH. 4. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL T HE APPELLANT DISPUTES THE VERY INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS AS BAD IN LAW AND THEREBY HOLDING THE ORDERS PASSED IN THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS AS ERRONEOUS AS SO FAR AS THEY ARE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF 4 REVENUE AND THEREBY DIRECTING THE A.O. TO GIVE SIMI LAR EFFECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 185 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND DISALLO W THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE FIRM AS PROVIDED U/S 40(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961. 5. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL T HE APPELLANT DISPUTES THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(CENTRAL) ON MERITS ALSO WHERE BY LD. CIT(CENTRAL) HAS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT FIRM DOES NOT FULFILL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 184 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 SO AS TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION O F INTEREST AND SALARY PAID TO PARTNERS OF THE APPELLANT FIRM FOR THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION AND THEREBY DIRECTING THE LD. A.O., TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 185 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND DISALLOW THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE FIRM AS PROVIDED U/S 40(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH ACTION OF LD. CIT(CENTRA L) IS ILLEGAL, ERRONEOUS AND PERVERSE. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND AND D ELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE PRESENT APP EAL. 5. THE ONLY ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE PRESENT APP EAL IS WHETHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD VIOLATED CONDITIONS OF SECTION 184(4) DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS, THEREBY RENDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ALLOWING TH E CLAIM OF INTEREST AND SALARY TO PARTNERS BY THE AO, AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 6. LD. CIT HELD THAT THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153 A WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A CERTIFIED COPY OF TH E INSTRUMENT OF PARTNERSHIP. LD. CIT HAS FURTHER HELD THAT NO CERTI FIED COPY WAS FILED EVEN AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, RATHER ONLY A PHOTOCOPY OF THE INSTRUMENT OF PARTNERSHIP WAS FILED. LD. CIT HELD THAT EVEN AS PER OFFICE REC ORDS A PARTNERSHIP DEED WAS FILED DURING ASSESSMENT BUT THE SAME WAS NOT CERTIF IED BY ALL THE PARTNERS AND HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 184(4) STOOD VIOLAT ED. 7. BEFORE US LD. AR STATED THAT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSES SMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) DURING THE COURSE OF WHICH, PARTNERSHIP DEED, DULY SIGNED BY ALL THE PARTNERS WAS SUBMITTED. LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE REP LY FILED BY ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DT. 16.11.2007 ALONG WITH WH ICH THE PARTNERSHIP DEED WAS FILED BEFORE THE A.O. LD. AR FURTHER STATED THA T A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT 5 ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) WOULD SHOW THAT THE A.O. WA S AWARE OF FACT OF CHANGE IN PARTNERSHIP IN THIS REGARD BY VIRTUE OF THE CHAN GED PARTNERSHIP DEED FILED BEFORE HIM. LD. AR FURTHER POINTED TO THE OBSERVATI ON OF THE LD. CIT AT PARA 3.4 OF HIS ORDER WHEREIN, IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED A PHOTOCOPY OF THE INSTRUMENT OF PARTNERSHIP DURING ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS. LD. AR STATED THAT IN VIEW OF THIS FINDING OF FACTS BY THE CIT(A) IT C OULD NOT BE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VIOLATED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 184(4) OF THE ACT . LD. AR FURTHER STATED THAT THE ONLY REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 184 IS THAT THE INSTRUM ENT OF PARTNERSHIP MUST BE SIGNED BY ALL THE PARTNERS, AND THERE IS NO REQUIRE MENT TO MAKE IT AS ' CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE COPY'. THE AR RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF T HE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. CENTURY TWENTY ONE EXPORTS(2002)(12) TMI 559 IN SUPPORT OF HIS ABOVE CONTENTION. 8. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF L D. CIT(A). 9. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE BENCH DIRECTED TH E LD. DR TO VERIFY IN WRITING, FROM THE DEPARTMENTAL RECORDS, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED PARTNERSHIP DEED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME LD. DR FILED THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS VIDE LETTER DT. 16.09.2015:- INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (DR) (ITAT )-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, FOURTH FLOOR, HIMALAYA MARG, SECTOR -17 E, CHANDIGARH- 160017(U.T) TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone] F.NO. CIT(LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE)/(ITAT)01/2015-16/ 822 DT. 16/09/2015 TO THE HONBLE MEMBERS, ITAT, KENDRIYA SADAN, SECTOR-9, CHANDIGARH RESPECTED MADAM/SIR, SUBJECT:- SUBMISSION IN THE CASE OF M/S HOT MILLIO NS, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH, A.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10- REGARDING- KINDLY REFER TO THE SUBJECT MENTIONED ABOVE. 6 2. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS FOR YOUR KIND INFORMATION THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASES THE HONBLE BENCH HAD DIRECTE D THE DEPARTMENT TO FILE WRITTEN SUBMISSION STATING WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED P ARTNERSHIPS DEEDS DULY SIGNED BY THE PARTNERS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. AS THE RECORD FOR A.Y. 2006-07 HAD BEEN REQUISIT IONED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE SAME WAS CHECKED AND IT IS FOUND THAT A PARTNERSHIP DATE D 19/12/2005 (COPY ENCLOSED) IS THEREON THE RECORD. 4. IN RESPECT OF THE A.YS 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-1 0 A LETTER DATED 15/09/2015 WAS WRITTEN TO DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, CHANDIGARH REQUESTING HIM T O CHECK THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND CLARIFY WHETHER PARTNERSHIP DEED DULY SIGNED BY THE PARTNER S HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, CHANDIGARH VIDE HIS LETTER NO. 1443 DATED 16/09/2015 HAS INFORMED THAT THE PARTNERSHIPS DEED IN THE A.YS 20 07-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LETTER OF THE DCIT IS ENCLOSED ALONGWITH FOR YOUR KIND REFERENCE. YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- (D S SIDHU) JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ITAT (DR), CHANDIGARH 10. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES IN DETAIL AND PE RUSING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEF ORE US, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS EMERGING IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE THAT DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS, THERE WAS CHANGE IN PARTNERSHIP OF THE ASSES SEE FIRM. THE PARTNERSHIP DEEDS REFLECTING THE CHANGE WERE FILED BEFORE THE A .O. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH FACT HAS BEEN UNEQUIVOCALLY ESTAB LISHED BY THE LETTER FILED BY THE LD. DR, WHEREIN THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE I, CHANDIGARH HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME AFTER SCRUTINIZING THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO PLACED BEFORE US THE COPIES OF THE SUBJECT PARTNERSHIP DEE DS RECEIVED FROM THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, CHANDIGARH, ALONG WITH HIS LETTER . ON PERUSAL OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED, WE FIND THAT THE SAME DULY REFLECTS THE CHANG E IN PARTNERSHIP WHICH TOOK PLACE DURING THE IMPUGNED YEARS. THE PARTNERSHIP DE ED DATED 19/12/2005, REFLECTED THE CHANGE IN PARTNERSHIP WHICH OCCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEATH OF ONE OF PARTNER COL. A.B. SINGH ON 20/11/2005, AND T HE CONTINUATION OF PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE REMAINING FOUR PARTNERS I.E ; 1. MRS. MOHINI SINGH (W/O COL. A.B. SINGH) 2. MR. MOHAN BIR SINGH (S/O COL. A.B. SINGH) 3. MR. AMAN BIR SINGH ( S/O COL. A.B. SINGH) 4. MR. RAJVIR SINGH (S/O COL. A.B. SINGH) 7 THE DEED IS ALSO DULY SIGNED BY THE REMAINING FOUR PARTNERS. SIMILARLY, THE PARTNERSHIP DEED EXECUTED ON 1 ST APRIL 2007, (RELEVANT FOR AY 2008-09) BETWEEN THE AFOREMENTIONED FOUR PARTNERS REFLECTED THE CHAN GE IN THE AMOUNT OF SALARY TO WHICH THEY WERE ENTITLED AT RS. 7,80,000/- PER Y EAR PER PARTNER. THIS PARTNERSHIP DEED IS ALSO DULY SIGNED BY ALL THE FOU R PARTNERS. THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 01/04/2008 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10, DULY REFLECTED THE CHANGE IN THE SALARY OF THE PARTNERS TO 10,80,000 P ER YEAR AND EXCLUDED MR. RAJBIR SINGH FROM THE ENTITLEMENT OF GETTING SALARY . THIS DEED IS ALSO SIGNED BY ALL THE PARTNERS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT THA T WHENEVER THERE WAS A CHANGE IN PARTNERSHIP, THE ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF SIGNED PARTNERSHIP DEEDS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THERE WAS THEREFORE, NO VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 184 OF THE ACT. THE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NAND LAL LABHU RAM (2011) 63 DTR (P &H) 406 HELD THAT PARTNERSHIP DEEDS FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS AMOUNTED TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT U/S 184 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED AS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S S.R. BATLIBOI AND ASSOCI ATES IN ITA 190 OF 2009 DT. 24/02/2015 HAS ALSO TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW. MOREOVER, PARTNERSHIP DEEDS DULY SIGNED BY ALL THE PARTNERS TANTAMOUNT TO BEING CERT IFIED COPIES OF PARTNERSHIP DEEDS. THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. CENTURY TWENTY ONE EXPORTS 2002 (12) TM 1559 HAS HELD : WHEN A DOCUMENT IS DULY SIGNED IN ORIGINAL BY ALL T HE PARTNERS AND WITNESSES, IT CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MARKED THEREON AS CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE COPY. THE BASIC REQUIREME NT OF SECTION 184 IS THAT THE INSTRUMENT OF PARTNERSHIP MUST BE SIGNED BY ALL THE PARTNERS, SO THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD VERIFY THAT ALL THE PARTNERS WHOSE NA MES ARE MENTIONED, ARE GENUINE PARTNERS. ON TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO GRANT REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISM ISSED. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE TOTALITY OF FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON THE ISSUE WE FIND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT VIOLATED THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 184 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT AND THEREFORE THE 8 ORDER OF THE AO IS NOT ERRONEOUS ON THIS ISSUE. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/11/2015 SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 17/11/2015 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR