2015 (4) TMI 266 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) - huge salary paid to Mr. R.S.Saluja vis-avis the profits & turnover of the firm as well as average salary being paid to the management personnel by its group company, i.e. SEL Manufacturing Ltd. which has more than 13 times the turnover than the assessee firm - ITAT deleting the disallowance - Held that - The said person is successfully running the business of the group which had a return of more than thousand crores, on account of his experience. The main company he had established way back in 1969 and due to his experience of over four decades, he had also been able to help the respondent/assessee concern to achieve the sale level of ₹ 48 crores. Merely because the company was, at present, earning low monthly taxable profits, would not be a ground, as such, to disallow the salary to the tune of ₹ 2 lacs per month, which Shri R.S.Saluja was being paid, keeping in view his background, experience and therefore, it cannot be said that he was a man of straw. The CIT and the Tribunal both have recorded a finding that it is not that the said person was taxed at a lower rate than that of the assessee-firm and therefore, they had correctly held that the AO could not substitute the wisdom of the partners of the firm to hold that the salary was excessive and unreasonable. The findings which have been recorded are purely on facts arising out of the peculiar circumstances of the case and no question of law, as such, arises out of the facts of the case which would require adjudication as has been sought to be contended. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal, exemption to file true copies of orders, interpretation of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, determination of questions of law under Section 40A(2)(b), reasonableness of salary paid to an individual covered under Section 40A(2)(b), comparison of turnover and profits between firms, justification for high salary, assessment of excessive or unreasonable expenses, consideration of individual's experience in salary determination, challenge of findings by the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax, and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Condonation of Delay:
The High Court allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, considering the averments supported by an affidavit of the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana.

Exemption to File True Copies:
The Court granted the application for exemption to file true copies of assessment orders and ITAT's order, based on the averments supported by an affidavit of the Commissioner of Income Tax.

Interpretation of Section 260A:
The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, challenging the ITAT's order regarding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40A(2)(b) for the assessment year 2009-10.

Determination of Questions of Law:
The Revenue raised questions of law regarding the correctness of deleting the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) by the ITAT, focusing on the reasonableness of the salary paid and the tax implications for the firm and the individual.

Reasonableness of Salary:
The Assessing Officer disallowed an amount paid as salary to an individual covered under Section 40A(2)(b), considering the turnover and profits of the firm, leading to a conclusion of excessive payment. However, the CIT and ITAT found the salary justified based on the individual's experience and contribution to the firm's growth.

Comparison of Turnover and Profits:
The AO compared the turnover and profits of the firm with another company to assess the reasonableness of the salary paid, leading to the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b).

Justification for High Salary:
The firm justified the high salary paid to the individual based on his experience, strategic direction, and contribution to the firm's growth, emphasizing his role in achieving significant sales levels.

Assessment of Excessive or Unreasonable Expenses:
The CIT and ITAT overturned the AO's decision, emphasizing that the salary was not excessive or unreasonable considering the individual's services and the lack of tax planning motives.

Consideration of Individual's Experience:
The Court highlighted the individual's extensive experience in the textile industry and his role in the firm's growth as factors justifying the high salary paid to him.

Challenge of Findings:
The Revenue challenged the findings of the CIT and ITAT, arguing that the salary was unreasonably high compared to the firm's profits. However, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities based on the individual's background and contribution to the firm's success.