2020 (8) TMI 145 - AT - Income Tax

Interest on delayed payment not charge - even written off as deduction - HELD THAT - Assessee was not able to recover the interest from the said party and on account of termination of the agreement, the impugned amount was left with M/s. PACL India Ltd., and on agreement it was decided between the parties that assessee would raise a debit note and both parties have agreed that only part amount would be paid and balance amount shall not be paid to the assessee. Therefore, explanation of assessee is very specific and supported by the documents on record that assessee was not able to recover the amount from the party, therefore, it was adjusted against the Bill and was rightly written-off from the accounts as deduction. Since the issue of interest has reached finality on deleting the addition by the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the fact is very clear that assessee was not able to recover the whole amount from the concerned party and on final settlement of the dues, if impugned amount could not be recovered by the assessee, it is certainly a business loss to the assessee, for which, no addition should have been made by the authorities below. Disallowance of remuneration to the Director - HELD THAT - The assessee company has declared income of ₹ 59,71,541/- in the return of income. Total turnover of the assessee is 5.85 Cr. as per Profit Loss A/c. The salary and other benefits paid to the staff is at ₹ 1.82 crores in assessment year under appeal. There is no dispute that there is increase in the salary to the staff and there is increase in the turnover as well. If the assessee company paid salary of ₹ 50,000/- P.M. to the Director, we are of the view that it would not be unreasonable or exorbitant. Considering the history of the assessee company as noted above, we are of the view that salary paid of ₹ 6 lakhs per annum to the Director is wholly reasonable and appropriate and as such, no disallowance is required to be done. A.O. has not brought any evidence on record, if no salary is paid to the Director. We set aside the Orders of the authorities below and delete the entire addition. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred appeal by the Assessee.
2. Disallowance of interest on delayed payment.
3. Disallowance of remuneration to the Director.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the Assessee was time-barred by 09 days, but the delay was condoned considering the explanation provided and the nominal delay. The Tribunal allowed the appeal despite the time-bar.

2. The Assessee, engaged in providing security and maintenance services, had an agreement with M/s PACL India Limited regarding interest on delayed payments. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) charged interest, which was deleted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the Assessee could not recover the interest and had agreed with M/s PACL India Limited to write off a certain amount. The Tribunal upheld the Assessee's explanation, noting it as a business loss, and deleted the addition made by the lower authorities.

3. Regarding the disallowance of remuneration to the Director, the A.O. disallowed an amount, considering the increase in the Director's remuneration disproportionate to the turnover increase. The Tribunal, after reviewing the turnover, profit, and salary paid to staff, found the Director's salary of ?6 lakhs per annum to be reasonable and justifiable. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the disallowance made by the lower authorities.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, setting aside the orders of the lower authorities on both issues of disallowance of interest on delayed payment and remuneration to the Director.