The DCITNavsari Circle, Navsari V. Ramaben Hospital, Navsari

ITA 4059/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6354 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 30-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H K LAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Fair market value
• Section: 145; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND D. C. AGRAWAL , AM) ITA NO.4059/AHD/2008 A. Y.: 2005-06 THE D. C. I. T., NAVSARI CIRCLE, SWAPNALOK SOCIETY, NEAR KALIAWADI BRIDGE, JUNATHANA, NAVSARI VS RAMABEN HOSPITAL, NEAR LAXMI TALKIES, RUSTAMWADI KARWAD, NAVSARI PA NO. AABFD 8428 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI H. K. LAL, DR RESPONDENT BY SMT. URVASHI SHODHAN, AR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), V ALSAD DATED 14 TH AUGUST, 2008, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND C ONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. ON GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL, THE REVENUE CHALLE NGED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON ON ACCOUNT OF VEHICLE EXPENSES, INTEREST, BANK CHARGES, INSURANCE AND DEPRECIATION OF RS.3,83,474/-. THE AO DISALLOWED RS.5,11,298/- A T 80% ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS VEHICLE RELATED EXPENSES. THE AS SESSEE INCURRED TOTAL EXPENSES ON THESE HEADS IN A SUM OF RS.6,39,1 22/-, BIFURCATION ITA NO.4059/AHD/2008 DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI VS RAMABEN HOSPITAL 2 OF THE SAME IS GIVEN IN PARA 3.1 OF THE IMPUGNED OR DER. THE AO DISALLOWED 80% OUT OF THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, ONLY IN EMERGENCY CASES AND UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES , THE CARS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WOULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE PURP OSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT EXPENSES HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED ON ILLOGICAL AND UNRE ASONABLE GROUND THAT CARS WERE LUXURIOUS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTED THAT THERE IS NO LOGIC IN T HE OBSERVATION OF THE AO. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT TO PRESCRI BE ANY BRAND OR MODEL OF THE CAR TO BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSI NESS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) EXAMINING THE EVIDENCES AND MATERIAL ON RECO RD RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 20% AND DELETED THE REMAINING ADDIT ION. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE USED THE CARS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, T HEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE HAS NOT MERIT AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. ON GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL, THE REVENUE CHALLE NGED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(2) (B) OF THE IT ACT OF RS.43, 200/-. THE AO DISALLOWED EXCESSIVE SALARY ON THIS ISSUE. THE ASSE SSEE FIRM HAD PAID SALARY TO MRS. ASHABEN V. KAPADIA WHO WAS REND ERING SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND HANDLING ALL THE ADMINISTR ATIVE WORKS. THE ITA NO.4059/AHD/2008 DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI VS RAMABEN HOSPITAL 3 AO NOTED THAT SHE WAS NOT HAVING SPECIALIZED KNOWLE DGE OF THE PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND LOOKING AFTER O NLY ADMINISTRATIVE WORKS. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING HER EDUCATION, HER SA LARY OF RS.15,000/- PER MONTH AND BONUS OF RS.3,000/- WAS C ONSIDERED REASONABLE AND REST OF THE AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWED. I T WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM PA ID RS.18,000/- PER MONTH BY WAY OF SALARY TO MRS. ASHABEN V. KAPADIA W HO IS WIFE OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. SHE WAS A LSO PAID BONUS OF RS.43,200/- @ 20% OF ANNUAL SALARY. IN THE EARLIER YEAR, SHE WAS PAID SALARY OF RS.15,000/- PER MONTH AND BONUS OF RS.36, 000/- @20% OF THE ANNUAL SALARY. THE AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SCOPE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY MRS. ASHABEN V. KAPADIA. IT WA S EXPLAINED THAT SHE WAS WORKING AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE HOSPITAL SI NCE LAST 27 YEARS AND SHE WAS TAKING CARE OF ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION. D ETAILS WERE ALSO EXPLAINED ABOUT HER FUNCTIONING AND THE AREA MONITO RED BY HER. DETAILS OF THE SAME ARE ALSO REPRODUCED IN THE APPE LLATE ORDER. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT SHE IS INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING THE ENTIRE SALARY AND PAID TAX THEREOF. THE REFORE, ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE CORRECT. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE AO HAS NOWHERE DISPU TED THE ACTUAL WORKING OF MRS. ASHABEN V. KAPADIA AND NO ENQUIRY H AS BEEN MADE ON THIS ISSUE. THE SALARY PAID TO MRS. ASHABEN V. K APADIA WAS FOUND TO BE REASONABLE; THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS DELET ED. 6. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LE ARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. THE AO HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY CASE AS T O HOW THE SALARY ITA NO.4059/AHD/2008 DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI VS RAMABEN HOSPITAL 4 PAID TO MRS. ASHABEN V. KAPADIA IS EXCESSIVE AND UN REASONABLE. NO MATERIAL IS BROUGHT ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE SALARY AND BONUS IS EXCESSIVE. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AU THORITY BELOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MAD E. THERE IS NOTHING UNREASONABLE IN THIS REGARD. IN ANY CASE EV EN FOR APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF 40A (2) (B) OF IT ACT IT IS FOR T HE AO TO MAKE OUT A CASE THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH SERV ICES. NO EFFORT IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO. HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF UPPER INDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE PVT. LTD., 117 ITR 569 HELD THAT BEFORE SECTION 40A (2) IS APPLIED, AO SHOULD HAVE PROVED EXPENDITURE IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. SHE WAS WORKING WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR LAST SEVERAL YEARS AS ARGUED. THE LEAR NED CIT(A) ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS RIGHTLY HELD THAT SALARY AND BONUS PAID TO HER IS NOT EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. SHE I S ASSESSED TO TAX AND OFFERED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE ASS ESSEE AS HER INCOME AND PAID THE TAXES THEREON. IN VIEW OF THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NOTED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THIS GROUND. SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DIS MISSED. 7. ON GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL, THE REVENUE CHALLE NGED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N ON ACCOUNT OF NON- PAYMENT OF INTEREST OF RS.2,53,614/- AND ON GROUND NO.4 REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELET ING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PAYMENT OF SALARY OF RS.7,20,000/-. THE AO WHILE PASSING ORDER DISALLOWED INTEREST ON CAPITAL AND SALARY TO PARTNERS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS FOLLOWING CAS H SYSTEM OF ITA NO.4059/AHD/2008 DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI VS RAMABEN HOSPITAL 5 ACCOUNTING WHEREAS, INTEREST ON CAPITAL AND REMUNER ATION TO PARTNERS WERE CLAIMED BY PASSING JOURNAL ENTRIES IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS. THE AO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD NOT ACTUALLY P AID SALARY AND INTEREST ON CAPITAL REGULARLY ON MONTHLY BASIS AND HAD ONLY CREDITED THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTNERS BY INTEREST AND REMUNE RATION PAYABLE TO THEM WITHOUT ACTUAL PAYMENTS TO THEM AND THEREFORE, THE AO DISALLOWED INTEREST ON CAPITAL OF RS. 2,53,614/- AN D REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS OF RS. 7,20,000/-. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT( A), THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD CLAIMED INTERE ST ON PARTNERS' CAPITAL AND REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS AS PER DET AILS GIVEN HEREIN BELOW;- NAME INTEREST ON CAPITAL (RS.) REMUNERATION (RS.) TOTAL (RS.) DR.RAMABEN D. KAPADIA 1,38,500 2,40,000 3,78,500 DR. VIPUL D. KAPADIA 1,34,635 4,80,000 6,14,635 TOTAL 2,73,135 7,20,000 9,93,135 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT THE AO WAS CONCEPTUALLY WRONG IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITU RE IN AS MUCH AS THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF DISALLOWING THE INTEREST O N CAPITAL OF PARTNERS AND REMUNERATION PAID TO PARTNERS BECAUSE THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXPENDITURE FOR THE FIRM BUT TH E SAME WAS A KIND OF STATUTORY DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE AS PER THE PROV ISIONS OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY MADE FOR GRANTING SUCH ALLOWANCE AS A PART OF SCHEME OF TAXATION. IT WAS A KIND OF DISTRIBUTION OF PROFIT O F THE FIRM WHERE THE TAX ITA NO.4059/AHD/2008 DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI VS RAMABEN HOSPITAL 6 WAS LEVIED IN THE HANDS OF PARTNERS CONSIDERING THE LIMITS SPECIFIED U/S 40(B) OF THE ACT WHEREAS THE BALANCE AMOUNT IS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. SO IN REAL SENSE, IT WAS A DISTR IBUTION OF PROFIT AND NOT ACTUALLY EXPENDITURE AND THEREFORE, THE QUESTIO N OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT DOES NOT ARISE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THAT AS PER THE AMENDED SCHEME OF TAXATION OF FIRMS SUCH DISTRIBUTION OF PROFIT IN FORM OF INTERE ST OR REMUNERATION WAS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF PARTNERS U/S 28(V) ON ACCRUAL OR RECEIPT BASIS WHICH CLEARLY SUGGESTED THAT THE SAME AMOUNT WAS AL LOWABLE ON SIMILAR BASIS AS DEDUCTION IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM . IT IS ALSO MENTIONED IN SECTION 28(V) THAT WHATEVER AMOUNT WHI CH WAS NOT ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S 40(B) OF THE ACT, SHALL NO T BE CHARGED TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. THUS IT WAS VERY CLEAR TH AT THE ALLOWABILITY OF INTEREST AND REMUNERATION WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH TH E TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS AUTHORIZED BY THE PARTNERSHIP DEED OF THE FIRM. THEY ALSO ARGUED THAT THE AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FA CT THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, THE REMUNERATION WAS TO BE PA ID TO THE PARTNERS ON THE BASIS OF PROFIT OF THE FIRM WHICH COULD OBVI OUSLY BE WORKED OUT AT THE END OF THE YEAR ONLY. SIMILARLY INTEREST ON CAPITAL ALSO COULD BE WORKED OUT AT THE END OF THE YEAR ONLY. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF PASSING ANY MONTHLY ENTRY FOR SUCH EXPENDITURE AS CONTENDED BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE FI RM HAD PAID INTEREST AND REMUNERATION IN TERMS OF THE SUPPLEMEN TARY DEED EXECUTED ON 01-04-1997 BY THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSES SEE FIRM AND THEREFORE THE SAME WAS FULLY ALLOWABLE AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP ITA NO.4059/AHD/2008 DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI VS RAMABEN HOSPITAL 7 THAT THE PARTNERS WERE ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW ANY AMO UNT DURING THE YEAR FROM TIME TO TIME AGAINST THE SALARY OR REMUNE RATION BY WAY OF WITHDRAWALS INCLUDING WITHDRAWALS FOR ANY KIND OF P ERSONAL EXPENSES AND INVESTMENTS. A COPY OF SUPPLEMENTARY DEED WAS A LSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENT IONS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED COPIES OF C APITAL ACCOUNTS OF BOTH THE PARTNERS AND A SUMMARY OF CAPITAL ACCOUNTS . THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT DR. VIPUL D. K APADIA WAS ENTITLED TO A REMUNERATION OF RS.4,80,000/- AGAINST WHICH HE HAD TOTAL DRAWINGS OF RS. 7,42,319/-. SIMILARLY, DR. RAMABEN KAPADIA GOT REMUNERATION OF RS. 2,40,000/- AGAINST WHICH HER TO TAL WITHDRAWALS DURING THE YEAR WAS RS.3,50,583/- AND THAT THERE WA S NO QUESTION OF DISALLOWING ANY AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION IN VIEW OF T HIS FACT. MOREOVER, THE SAID WITHDRAWALS WERE SUFFICIENT TO C OVER INTEREST PART ALSO. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST ON CAPITAL WAS ALWAYS CALCULATED AT THE END OF THE YEAR I.E. ON CLOSURE O F BUSINESS HOURS AS ON 31 ST MARCH EVERY YEAR AND THEREFORE, IT WAS PRACTICALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO MAKE ANY PAYMENT DURING THE YEAR. IT WAS CLEAR T HAT THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD MADE SUFFICIENT WITHDRAWALS A GAINST THE INTEREST AND REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO THEM AND THERE FORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS QUITE LEGITIMATE AND GENUINE AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED AO WAS UNJUSTIFIAB LE AND UNREASONABLE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE. 8. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE ASSESSEE AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD DELET ED BOTH THE ITA NO.4059/AHD/2008 DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI VS RAMABEN HOSPITAL 8 ADDITIONS. HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 5.3 OF THE APPELLAT E ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 5.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS W ELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ARS OF THE APPELLANT. IN CASE OF ANY FIRM ASSESSABL E AS SUCH, ANY PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION OF ANY PARTNER WH O IS A WORKING PARTNER AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST OF ANY PA RTNER ON HIS CAPITAL WHICH IS PAID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED AND WHICH RELATES TO ANY PE RIOD FALLING AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH PARTNERSHIP AND WHIC H IS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT SPECIFIED IN SECTION 40 (B) OF THE ACT ARE ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE REMUNERAT ION AND INTEREST TO PARTNERS WERE PAID IN TERMS OF AND AS AUTHORIZED BY THE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP. THE AO DISPU TED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT NO MONTHLY PAYMENT WAS MADE AND TOTAL CLAIM WAS MADE BY PASSING J.V. IT IS TRUE THAT THE INTEREST ON CAPITAL CAN BE CALCULATED ONLY AT THE END OF THE YEAR. ALSO THE REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO T HE PARTNERS WAS TO BE WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF THE P ROFIT OF THE YEAR AND THEREFORE, THE QUANTIFICATION OF INTER EST AND REMUNERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PARTNERSHIP DEED IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON 31 ST MARCH OF EVERY YEAR. THEREFORE, PASSING OF J.V. ENTRY ON SUC H QUANTIFICATION DOES NOT LEAD TO ANY CONCLUSION ABOU T THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. THE TOTAL FACTS OF THE CASE A RE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE SEEN. FROM THE COPY OF CAPITAL ACCOU NT IT IS SEEN THAT THE PARTNERS HAVE MADE SUFFICIENT WITHDRA WALS DURING THE YEAR FROM TIME TO TIME TO COVER THE REMUNERATION PAID TO PARTNERS. MOREOVER, THE CONTENTION OF THE AO THAT THE PARTNERS SHOULD BE PAID SALARY A ND INTEREST REGULARLY ON MONTHLY BASIS IS ALSO NOT COR RECT BECAUSE THERE IS NO COMPULSION LIKE THIS IN THE ACT AND IT IS ONLY TO BE SEEN AS TO WHETHER THE SALARY AND REMUNERATION HAS BEEN PAID AS AUTHORIZED BY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF PARTNERSHIP DEED. THE SUPPLEMENTARY DEED OF THE APPELLANT FIRM PROVIDED T HAT THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM WERE ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW AMOUNT ITA NO.4059/AHD/2008 DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI VS RAMABEN HOSPITAL 9 FROM TIME TO TIME AGAINST THE REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO THEM AND ACCORDINGLY, THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM HAD SUFFICIENT WITHDRAWALS OF RS.7,42,319/- IN CASE OF DR. VIPUL KAPADIA AND RS. 3,50,583/-INCASE OF DR. RAMAB EN KAPADIA TO COVER THE REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO THEM. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO TO DISALLOW INTEREST ON CAPITAL OF RS. 2,53,614/ - AND REMUNERATION OF RS. 7,20,000/- TO PARTNERS IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE AND HENCE I HEREBY DIRECT THE AO TO DEL ETE BOTH THESE ADDITIONS. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 4 AND 5 ARE ALLOWED. 9. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO CL AUSES FROM PARTNERSHIP DEED AND SUPPLEMENTARY PARTNERSHIP DEED . COPY OF THE SAME ARE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK TO SHOW THAT THE L EARNED CIT(A) ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THE LEARNED DR HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY IN FIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). SINCE THE DEED OF PARTNERSHI P AND THE SUPPLEMENTARY DEED PROVIDE THE PROVISIONS AS EXPLAI NED ABOVE, FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND SALARY, THEREFORE, THE LEAR NED CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS. NO MATERIAL IS PRODUCED BEFO RE US TO REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, DO N OT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LE ARNED CIT(A). THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 10. NO OTHER POINT IS ARGUED OR PRESSED. ITA NO.4059/AHD/2008 DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI VS RAMABEN HOSPITAL 10 11 IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05-07-2011 (D. C. AGRAWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 05-07-2011 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD