2014 (7) TMI 217 - HC - Income Tax

Expenditure u/s 37 of the Act - Remuneration and training of working director Held that - The dispute is purely a factual one - the facts and the evidence brought on record by the assessee have been analysed by all the authorities below and in it s proper perspective - Tribunal rightly makes note of the entire factual matrix and affirms the orders passed by the AO as well as the CIT (A) in disallowing the claims - although an attempt was made on behalf of the assessee to make out a case that Mr Krishna Kachalia was instrumental in acquiring distributorship of VOLVO, no evidence whatsoever had been filed to support and substantiate the same - sending Mr. Krishna Kachalia, who was a Commerce Graduate and had joined the assessee just a month back, for a management course in marketing at the cost of the assessee without any exposure or experience, could not be justified on the touchstone of commercial expediency - assessee had not been able to satisfactorily explain the services rendered by Mr Krishna Kachalia and whatever explanation that was sought to be given in this regard was also found to be not acceptable by the AO by giving specific reasons - the onus was on the assessee to establish on evidence that the expenditures were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of it s business - assessee had failed to discharge the onus. The expenses claimed as a deduction by the assessee for the payment of salary to Mr Krishna Kachalia was rightly disallowed Mr. Krishna Kachalia was doing a management course with S.P. Jain Institute of Management & Research from October 2003 to April 2005 and therefore it was not possible that he was working for the company in the capacity of a Director at the same time when in fact he was a student - during the time Mr Krishna Kachalia was shown to be in-charge of the marketing activities at the assessee s Borivali Center, another Director of the assessee was also looking after the marketing activities at the very same place and was paid a remuneration of ₹ 10,00,000/- per annum for the work - in no other Center of the assessee was more than one Director assigned and the fact that Mr Krishna Kachalia was assigned to look after the work at Borivali in addition to another Director, his appointment was only for name sake assessee could not substantiate the contentions as made by him in front of the authorities thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration - Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the expenditure on remuneration and training of a working Director is allowable under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the expenditure on remuneration and training of a working Director is allowable under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

Arguments by Appellant-Assessee:
The Appellant-Assessee contended that the expenditure on remuneration and training of Mr. Krishna Kachalia, a working Director, was legitimately incurred for the efficient management and conduct of its business. The expenditure had a direct nexus with the business and should be allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Mr. Krishna Kachalia was instrumental in acquiring the VOLVO distributorship and managed the Used Car Division and workshop activities at Borivali.

Arguments by Revenue:
The Revenue argued that the findings of the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals), and ITAT were based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The authorities had disallowed the expenses after carefully considering the entire factual matrix, and there was no substantial question of law involved.

Findings of the Assessing Officer:
The Assessing Officer found that Mr. Krishna Kachalia was inducted as a Director at a young age and immediately after completing his B.Com. course, suggesting that the primary motive was to finance his higher education through the company's funds. The expenditure on his education was out of personal consideration and not commercial. The officer noted that similar expenditure was not incurred for any other employee, and another Director was already handling marketing activities at the Borivali Centre.

Findings of CIT (Appeals):
The CIT (Appeals) upheld the disallowance, noting the lack of evidence that the expenditure was incurred for business purposes. The Appellant-Assessee had no rules or regulations for incurring educational expenses for the Director's son or other employees. Furthermore, Mr. Krishna Kachalia was pursuing his management course during the period he was supposedly working as a Director, making it implausible that he was performing his duties.

Findings of ITAT:
The ITAT affirmed the disallowance, stating that the Appellant-Assessee failed to provide evidence that Mr. Krishna Kachalia was instrumental in acquiring the VOLVO distributorship. The ITAT found that sending him for a management course without any business experience could not be justified on commercial grounds. The Appellant-Assessee did not satisfactorily explain the services rendered by Mr. Krishna Kachalia, and the expenditures were not proved to be incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

Court's Analysis:
The Court found that the dispute was purely factual. The authorities had analyzed the facts and evidence properly. The Court held that the authorities' findings were not perverse or erroneous. The reliance on the case of Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd. was misplaced as the facts were different. In Sakal Papers, the training was found to be beneficial for the business, whereas in the present case, the expenditure was out of personal consideration. The Court also considered the judgment in D.C. Mehta's case, which had similar facts and where the deduction for educational expenses was disallowed.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the expenditure on remuneration and training of Mr. Krishna Kachalia was not incurred for business purposes and was rightly disallowed. The authorities' findings were based on evidence, and no substantial question of law was involved. The Appeals were dismissed, and the Appellant-Assessee was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the Respondents.