2012 (5) TMI 763 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of salary expenses - Held that - Salaries were reasonable and commensurate with the qualifications and work done by each employee. Bogus share application money - Held that - Assessing Officer who did not conduct any further investigation/verification or record statements. In the remand report, it was stated that the assessment order was passed on the basis of the information received from the investigation unit/wing. No further material or evidence to controvert the assessee was placed on record. The assessee had filed an affidavit of one Tarun Goel stating that the respondent/assessee had not arranged for bogus/accommodation entries as stated by the Assessing Officer.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of salary expenses
2. Bogus share application money from three companies

Issue 1: Disallowance of salary expenses
The Revenue raised the issue of disallowance of salary expenses in the case of Dalmia Brothers Private Limited for the assessment year 2006-07. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] found that the salaries were reasonable and commensurate with the qualifications and work done by each employee. They noted that full details of the employees were furnished, including names, addresses, qualifications, and nature of duties. Previous adhoc lump sum disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were deleted in appellate proceedings in the past. The High Court upheld a similar order in favor of the assessee in a previous appeal. The findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT were considered findings of fact, and no question of law arose on this issue.

Issue 2: Bogus share application money from three companies
The second issue raised by the Revenue related to alleged bogus share application money from three companies. The Assessing Officer's findings were deemed cryptic as no investigation or verification was conducted. The CIT(A) extensively analyzed the issue, referring to various documents and evidence filed by the assessee. The CIT(A) reproduced evidence in the form of a chart, detailing the names of companies, addresses, amounts, mode of payment, and evidences furnished by the appellant. The ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s order. The Revenue failed to provide any investigation report, statements, or documents before the court. The court held that the Revenue's failure to conduct necessary inquiries and investigations, despite documents placed on record by the assessee, precluded their success. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no question of law arose on this issue.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Delhi High Court, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Easwar, addressed two main issues related to the disallowance of salary expenses and alleged bogus share application money. The court found in favor of the assessee on both issues, emphasizing the importance of conducting thorough investigations and providing substantial evidence in tax matters.