Altmash Exports, Hapur V. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 451/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8862 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL GULATI
• Keywords: Revision of order; Audit objection; Rule of consistency; Question of law; Set aside
• Section: 263; 28; 143(3); 40(b); 201; 251

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.451/DEL./2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16) M/S. ALTMASH EXPORTS, VS. PR.CIT, C/O SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE GHAZIABAD. 206 207, ANSAL SATYAM, RDC, GHAZIABAD 201 002 (UTTAR PRADESH). (PAN : AALFA6025E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI SATPAL GULATI, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 04.03.2021 DATE OF ORDER : 23.03.2021 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : APPELLANT, M/S. ALTMASH EXPORTS (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.01.2020 PASSED BY THE PR. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GHAZIABAD UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- 1. THAT, THE ORDER OF LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND IS AG AINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NO.451/DEL./2020 2 2. THAT, LD. PCIT GROSSLY ERRED IN INVOKING PROVISI ONS OF S.263 AND DIRECTING AO TO DISALLOW REMUNERATION TO WORKING PARTNERS ON MERITS AGAINST THE RATIO OF CASES OF JU RISDICTIONAL COURTS/HON'BLE TRIBUNALS IN VAISH ASSOCIATES [2015] 63 TAXMANN.COM 90/235 TAXMAN 308 (DELHI), M/S GREAT CI TY MANUFACTURING CO. ITA NO.461/20019 (ALL) AND JRA ASSOCIATES ITA 571/2015 ETC. DECIDING ISSUE IN FAVO UR OF ASSESSEE WITH IDENTICAL FACTS/CIRCUMSTANCES ON MERITS. 3. THAT, VIEW OF LD. PCIT IS ALSO AGAINST THE PRINC IPLE OF CONSISTENCY AS REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS IS ALWAYS A LLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS AFTER ENQUIRY U/S 143(3) OF IT AC T, 1961. 4. THAT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, ORDER OF LD. P CIT IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 ITSELF IN AS MUCH AS NEITHER ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BEING ISSUE IS COVERED BY COURT CASES IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE NOR EVEN IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTEREST OF REVENUE AS EVEN AFTER SUCH DISALLOWANCE NO EXTRA TA X WILL ACCRUE TO DEPTT. AS PARTNERS HAS ALREADY PAID TAX @ 30% ON THE AMOUNT UNDER QUESTION AND ISSUE OF TAX IS NEUTRAL. 5. THAT, LD. PCIT FURTHER ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT A O HAS NOT MADE ENQUIRY ON THE ISSUE IN AS MUCH AS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED DETAIL S OF COMPUTATION OF REMUNERATION WHICH ONLY DEMONSTRATE THE ALLOWANCE AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. 6. THAT, LD. PCIT FURTHER ERRED IN ISSUING SHOW CAU SE NOTICE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTION WITH A BORROWED ERRONEOUS VIEW ON A LEGAL ISSUE. ' 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ASSESSEE IS INTO THE BUSI NESS OF SALE OF FRESH AND FROZEN BUFFALO FOOD PRODUCTS SUITABLE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) FRAMED ASSESSM ENT IN THIS CASE ON 28.09.2017 AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.78,59, 871/- AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.64,18,780/- SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, LD. PR.CIT NOTICED THAT THE ASSES SEE FIRM HAS CLAIMED REMUNERATION TO ITS PARTNERS AMOUNTING TO R S.98,53,166/- ITA NO.451/DEL./2020 3 WHEREAS AS PER PARTNERSHIP DEED, THE REMUNERATION I S NEITHER QUANTIFIED NOR THE SAME IS QUANTIFIABLE AS PER PART NERSHIP DEED. LD. PR.CIT BY INVOKING THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.739 DATED 2 5.03.1996 OBSERVED THAT NO DEDUCTION U/S 40(B)(V) WILL BE ADM ISSIBLE UNLESS THE PARTNERSHIP DEED EITHER SPECIFIED THE AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO EACH INDIVIDUAL WORKING PARTNER OR LAYS DOWN THE MANNER OF QUANTIFYING SUCH REMUNERATION. CONSEQUEN TLY, LD. PR.CIT ISSUED SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY REMUNERAT ION WRONGLY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WRONGLY ALLOWED BY THE AO AND CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO MAY NO T BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REV ENUE OR CANCELLED OR MODIFIED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AS THE AO COULD HAVE MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.98,53,166/- ON ACCOUNT OF INADMI SSIBLE REMUNERATION. 3. ASSESSEE FILED REPLY AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO THE SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE, WHICH COULD NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH LD. PR.CIT WHO REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DA TED 28.09.2017 PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIA L TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND THEREBY DIRECTED THE AO TO ENHANCE T HE ASSESSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.98,53,166/ - BEING REMUNERATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT NOT ALLOWA BLE AS DEDUCTION. ITA NO.451/DEL./2020 4 4. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PR.CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONTENDED INTER ALIA THAT LD. PR.CIT HAS ERRED IN I NVOKING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AS THE ASSE SSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE; THAT REMUNERATION PAID TO THE PARTNERS IS QUANTIFIABLE AS PER PARTNERSHIP DEED IN WHICH IT IS CLEARLY MENTION ED THAT THE AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION WILL BE DETERMINED AS PER TH E PROVISIONS OF SUB-CLAUSE (V) OF CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 40 OF THE A CT AND WILL BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE PARTNERS EQUALLY; THAT THE RE MUNERATION RECEIVED BY THE PARTNERS WAS ALSO TAXED @ 30% IN IN DIVIDUAL HANDS AND EVEN IF REMUNERATION WAS NOT PAID BY THE FIRM T O ITS PARTNERS, THEN ALSO THE TAX @ 30% WAS PAYABLE ON IT; THAT THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT IS CONSISTENTLY ALLOWING THE REMUNERATIO N IN THE PRECEDING YEARS WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S 143 (3 ) OF THE ACT, SO THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY IS REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOW ED AND AS SUCH IS ITA NO.451/DEL./2020 5 NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENTS RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT, GUJARAT-II VS. KWALITY STEEL SUPPLIERS COMPLEX (201 7) 395 ITR 1 9SC), HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. GRE AT CITY MANUFACTURING CO. (2013) 251 ITR 156 (ALL.), HONBL E HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN CIT VS. VAISH ASSOCIATES (2015) 6 3 TAXMANN.COM 90 (DELHI) AND ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN JRA & ASSOCIATES VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.5571/DEL/2015 ORDER DATED 11.07.2018 . 7. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVEN UE IN ORDER TO REPEL THE ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED INTER ALIA THAT AS PER CLAUSE 5 OF PARTNE RSHIP DEED, REMUNERATION IS NEITHER QUANTIFIED NOR THE SAME IS QUANTIFIABLE; THAT EVERY YEAR OF ASSESSMENT IS TO BE EXAMINED INDEPEND ENTLY AND SEPARATELY AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PR.CIT. 8. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE LD. AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, THE S OLE QUESTION ARISES FOR DETERMINATION IN THIS CASE IS :- AS TO WHETHER LD. PR.CIT HAS ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY DIRECTING THE AO TO DISALLOW THE REMUNERATION TO WORKING PARTNERS AS THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE? ITA NO.451/DEL./2020 6 9. IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT IN ORDER TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, TWIN CONDI TIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED : (I) THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 10. IN ORDER TO PROCEED FURTHER, RELEVANT CLAUSE 5 OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED UNDER WHICH REMUNERATION HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM TO ITS WORKING PARTNERS IS EXTRACTED FOR READY PERUSAL AS UNDER :- '5. THAT AFTER MAKING PROVISION OF INTEREST OF PART NERS AS SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE 5 ABOVE BOTH THE PARTNERS, WHO ARE THE WORKING PARTNERS, WOULD BE ENTITLE TO REMUNERATION AS PER THE PROVISION OF SUB- CLAUSE (V) OF CLAUSE (B) OF SECTI ON 40 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OR UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISION A S MAY BE APPLICABLE IN THE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT OF THE FIRM IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, OUT OF THE TOTAL INCOME T AX ASSESSMENT OF THE FIRM IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT Y EAR, OUT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF REMUNERATION SO CALCULATED SHAL L BE ALLOWED TO THE PARTNERS IN EQUAL PROPORTIONS. A. THE REMUNERATION WORKED OUT ON THE ABOVE BASIS WOULD BE CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTNERS AT THE END OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR. B. HOWEVER THE PARTNERS MAY BY MUTUAL CONSENT VARY THE QUANTUM OF REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO THE WORKING PARTNERS FROM YEAR TO YEAR.' (EMPHASIS PROVIDED) 11. BARE PERUSAL OF CLAUSE 5, EXTRACTED ABOVE, GOES TO PROVE THAT REMUNERATION HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM TO ITS WORKING PARTNERS IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTA INED U/S ITA NO.451/DEL./2020 7 40(B)(V) OF THE ACT, OUT OF THE TOTAL INCOME TAX AS SESSMENT OF THE FIRM IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, OUT OF THE TO TAL INCOME OF REMUNERATION SO CALCULATED SHALL BE ALLOWED TO THE PARTNERS IN EQUAL PROPORTIONS. 12. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN CASE CITED AS VAISH ASSOCIATES (SUPRA) DEALT WITH THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AS TO INVOK ING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(B)(V) OF THE ACT AND DECID ED THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY RETURNING FOLLOWING FINDI NGS :- 8. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF MS. SURUCHI AG GARWAL, LEARNED SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE AND MS. KAVITA JHA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE, T HE COURT FINDS NO REASON TO TAKE A VIEW DIFFERENT FROM THE O NE TAKEN BY THE ITAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. CL AUSE 6(A) OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 20TH JUNE 2008 CLEARLY I NDICATES THE METHODOLOGY AND THE MANNER OF COMPUTING THE REMUNER ATION OF PARTNERS. THE REMUNERATION OF THE PARTNERS HAS BEEN COMPUTED IN TERMS THEREOF. THE COURT ADDITIONALLY NOTES THAT UNDER SECTION 28(V) OF THE ACT, ANY SALARY OR REMUNERATION BY WHA TEVER NAME CALLED RECEIVED BY PARTNERS OF A FIRM WOULD BE CHAR GEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PRO FESSION. THE PROVISO TO SECTION 28 (V) STATES THAT WHERE SUCH SA LARY HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER SECTION 40(B)(V), THE INCOME SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT NOT SO ALLO WED TO BE DEDUCTED. FURTHER SECTION 155 (1A) OF THE ACT STATE S THAT WHERE IN RESPECT OF A COMPLETED ASSESSMENT OF A PARTNER I N A FIRM, IT IS FOUND ON THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF THE FIRM THAT ANY REMUNERATION TO ANY PARTNER IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTION 40(B), THE AO MAY AMEND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PARTNER WITH A VIEW TO ADJUSTING THE INCOME OF THE PARTNER TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT NOT SO DEDUCTIBLE. A CONSPECTU S OF THESE PROVISIONS MAKES THE OPINION THE ITAT CONSISTENT WI TH THE LEGAL POSITION. 9. CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT FINDS NO LEGAL INFIRMITY IN THE INTERPRETATION PLACED BY THE ITAT ON CLAUSE 6(A) OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 22ND JUNE 2008 TO CONCLUDE T HAT THE SALARY PAID TO THE PARTNERS WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 40(B)(V) OF THE ACT AND OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN DISA LLOWED. ITA NO.451/DEL./2020 8 CONSEQUENTLY, AS REGARDS THIS ISSUE, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. 13. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN CASE OF CIT VS. GREAT CITY MANUFACTURING CO. (SUPRA) ALSO DEALT WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 40(B) READ WITH SECTIO N 40A(2) OF THE ACT AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY RETURNING FOLLOWING FINDINGS :- 5. SRI CHOPRA SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PARTNERSHIP D EED THE TERMS AND NATURE OF THE DUTIES OF EACH OF THE PARTN ERS IS NOT SPECIFIED AND THEREFORE, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS FOUND THAT THEY HAVE BEEN PAID EXCESSIVE REMUNERATION EVEN THO UGH THE PARTNERSHIP DEED PROVIDED SUCH PAYMENT HE COULD HAV E DISALLOWED THE SAME. HE PLACED RELIANCE UPON SECTIO N 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE TOTAL PAYMEN T OF SALARY TO ALL ITS EMPLOYEE WAS ONLY RS. 4,86,918/- THEN THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 39,31,165/- AS REM UNERATION TO THE PARTNERS. THE SUBMISSION IS WHOLLY MISCONCEIVED . IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ALL THE THREE PARTNERS ARE WORKING PAR TNERS IN THE ASSESSEE OPP. PARTY FIRM AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF ALLOWED THE REMUNERATION OF RS.4,00,000/- PER ANNUM TO EACH OF THE PARTNERS. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE TE RMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THE PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION TO THE WORKING PARTNERS. SECTION 40(B) (V) OF THE ACT PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF REMUNERATION WHICH CAN BE A LLOWED TO ITS PARTNER AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE BUSINESS I NCOME. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THE WO RKING PARTNERS WAS WITHIN THE PROVISION OF CLAUSE (V) OF SUBSECTIO N (B) OF SECTION 40 OF THE ACT. THE PARLIAMENT IN ITS WISDOM HAD FIX ED A LIMIT ON ALLOWING THE REMUNERATION TO THE WORKING PARTNERS A ND IF THE REMUNERATION ARE WITHIN THE CEILING LIMIT PROVIDED THEN RECOURSE TO PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE TAKEN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONLY REQUIRED TO SEE AS TO WHE THER THE PARTNERS ARE THE WORKING PARTNERS MENTIONED IN THE PARTNERSHIP DEED, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP D EED PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION TO THE WORKING PARTNERS AND WHETHER THE REMUNERATION PROVIDED IS WITHIN THE LIM ITS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 40(B)(V) OR NOT. IF ALL THE AFOREMENT IONED CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED THEN HE CANNOT DISALLOW AN Y PART OF THE REMUNERATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS EXCESSIVE. SI NCE IN THE PRESENT CASE, ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED HAS BEEN FULFILLED THE QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE DOES NOT ARISE. ITA NO.451/DEL./2020 9 14. FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN REVENUE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT TH AT PARTNERS ARE WORKING PARTNERS AS PER PARTNERSHIP DEED AND AS PER CLAUSE 5, THEY ARE ENTITLED FOR PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION WHICH ARE TO BE DETERMINED AS PER PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 40(B)(V) OF THE ACT, THEN REVENUE HAS NO BUSINESS TO DISALLOW THE SAME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT A SSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY THE AO IS NOT ERRONEOUS. 15. SO FAR AS QUESTION OF FULFILLING THE SECOND CON DITION THAT, ASSESSMENT FRAMED IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F THE REVENUE IS CONCERNED, AGAIN WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN IT I S UNDISPUTED FACT THAT REMUNERATION PAID TO THE INDIV IDUAL PARTNERS HAS BEEN TAXED @ 30%, THE SAME RATE TO WHICH INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS TO BE TAXED, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 16. APART FROM NON-FULFILLING TWIN CONDITIONS TO IN VOKE THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY LD. PR.C IT, IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEARS I.E. AYS 2013 -14 & 2014-15, THE SAME REMUNERATION AS PER CLAUSE 5 OF THE PARTNE RSHIP DEED AND IN CONSONANCE WITH SECTION 40(B)(V) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN PAID TO THE WORKING PARTNERS BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ITA NO.451/DEL./2020 10 REVENUE. NO DISTINGUISHING FACTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO TAKE A DIVERGENT VIEW. SO, IN THE O RDINARY COURSE OF CIRCUMSTANCES, REVENUE IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE R ULE OF CONSISTENCY THOUGH EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IS TO BE ASSESSED SEPARATELY AND INDEPENDENTLY. 17. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, QUEST ION FRAMED IS ANSWERED IN AFFIRMATIVE AND THE LD. PR.CIT IS HE LD TO HAVE ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 263 OF THE ACT DIRECTING THE AO TO DISALLOW THE REMUNERATION TO THE WORKING PARTNERS. CONSEQUENTLY ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PR.CIT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW, HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (KULDIP SIN GH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 23 RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021. TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT, GHAZIABAD. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.