TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to bring it within the purview of S.13(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not mentioned any valid reason in the assessment order to indicate that the salary paid to the Executive Director is not commensurate with the responsibilities/duties performed by him. Therefore, there being no material brought on record by the Assessing Officer to indicate that the salary paid is unreasonable or excessive, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A).- Decided against revenue. Violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules - Held that:- It is a fact on record that assessment for the assessment year 2008-099 has been completed by the Assessing Officer under S.143(3). It is also not disputed that the assessee, being a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neet Chabra, Executive Director, is excessive, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the application of sec.13(1)(c) is not warranted in the case of the assessee for the A Y 2011-12. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in entertaining the letter dt.11.01.2008 from the International Trustee relating to remuneration on appointment to Col. (Retd.) Naveneet Chabra, which is additional evidence, filed by the assessee during the appellate proceedings, without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer, in contravention of Rule 46A of I T Rules, 1962. 4. .. As can be seen, the issues raised in grounds No.2 and 3 are interrelated, and hence they are taken up for disposal as under- 3. Briefly the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor. He also noted that the appointment letter does not mention payment of bonus, ex-gratia etc., whereas Shri Chabra has been paid an amount of ₹ 80,000 as Christmas Gift. Thus, the Assessing Officer concluded that the payment being made by the assessee to Shri Chabra is in violation of provision contained in S.13(1)(c) or the Act, and therefore, the assessee will not be eligible for exemption under S.11 of the Act on the excess salary paid to Shri Navneet Chabra, during the year. The Assessing Officer while quantifying the reasonable salary for the impugned assessment year allowed increment of 10% per annum and fixed the salary for the year under dispute at ₹ 8,71,200. Resultantly, the excess payment of ₹ 5,80,256 was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. The basic grievance of the Learned Departmental Representative is not related to the issue whether the amount paid is reasonable or not. She submitted that the learned CIT(A) on the basis of a letter submitted before her, has deleted the addition, whereas before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has not produced any evidence to show that the salary paid to the Executive Director in the initial year of appointment is ₹ 10,80,000 and not ₹ 7,20,000. She therefore, submitted that since the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition by considering a letter, the facts stated wherein were never brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer, the matter may be remitted back to the Assessing Officer fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer. therefore, it cannot be said that the information submitted before the learned CIT(A) is in the nature of additional evidence. The learned Authorised Representative relying upon a number of judicial authorities submitted before us that if evidence submitted is of clinching nature, then no useful purpose would be served in again remitting the matter to the assessing authority. 8. We have considered the submission of the parties and perused the material on record as well as the orders of the Revenue authorities. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that in the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative admitted that Shri Navneet Chabra, being a trustee, is a person referred in S.13(3) of the Act read with S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the letter submitted before the learned CIT(A) by the assessee to show that the actual salary paid to Shri Chabra during the initial year of appointment is ₹ 10,80,000 and not ₹ 7,20,000, which is only the basic pay. In our view, the information submitted before the learned CIT(A) is not in the nature of additional evidence, on which the learned CIT(A) could have asked the Assessing Officer to verify authenticity of the assessee s claim. It is a fact on record that assessment for the assessment year 2008-099 has been completed by the Assessing Officer under S.143(3). It is also not disputed that the assessee, being a society registered under S.12A of the Act, is obliged and duty bound to file its return of income for each ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
