2010 (11) TMI 516 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b)- The revenue contented that the salary paid to Shri Anil Gupta was excessive and unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the services rendered by him - It is admitted before us by the ld. DR and it is also a matter of fact on record that no enquiry has been made in respect of the fair market value of the services rendered by Shri Anil Gupta to the assessee-firm - No comparable case has been brought on record - On the other hand the ld. CIT(A) has clearly mentioned that the services were engaged to take care of the interest of the firm and the firm has been able to derive income of about Rs.24.00 lakhs in these years - These findings have not been displaced by the ld. DR in any manner - Otherwise tax has been deducted at source from the salary paid to Shri Anil Gupta and composition of his total income is such that a part of it falls within the maximum marginal rate of tax - In absence of any evidence that the fair market value of services rendered by him to the firm was less than the actual amount paid to him we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowances made by the AO - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Disallowance of excessive salary paid to Chief Executive
- Application of section 40A(2)(b) in assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Excessive Salary Paid to Chief Executive
The appeals raised a common ground regarding the deletion of an addition of Rs.9.00 lakhs in assessment year 2006-07 and Rs.6.00 lakhs in assessment year 2007-08 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to excessive and unreasonable payment of salary to Shri Anil Gupta, Chief Executive and father of a partner. The AO contended that Shri Anil Gupta lacked the required qualifications and experience for the position, and provisions of section 40A(2)(b) were applicable. The AO found the salary paid to Shri Anil Gupta disproportionate to his qualifications and experience, suggesting that similar services could be obtained at a lower cost. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the role of Shri Anil Gupta in the firm, his tax assessment at the maximum marginal rate, and the income derived by the firm to conclude that the salary paid was justified. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the AO's claim of excessive payment without assessing the fair market value of the services rendered by Shri Anil Gupta.

Issue 2: Application of Section 40A(2)(b)
The Tribunal analyzed the application of section 40A(2)(b) which allows disallowance of excessive or unreasonable expenditures. The provision requires the AO to consider the fair market value of the services provided, the legitimate needs of the business, or the benefit derived. In this case, it was noted that the AO failed to investigate the fair market value of services rendered by Shri Anil Gupta or provide comparable cases to support the claim of excessive payment. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the services were engaged to protect the firm's interests, leading to substantial income generation. Moreover, tax was deducted at source from Shri Anil Gupta's salary, and his income composition fell within the maximum marginal tax rate. Without evidence of undervaluation of services, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances by the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of assessing the fair market value of services rendered before deeming payments excessive under section 40A(2)(b). The judgment underscores the need for concrete evidence to support claims of unreasonable expenditures, especially in cases involving related parties and tax implications.