Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. It may be mentioned here that in the course of arguments, it was suggested before Learned CIT(A), on behalf of the assessee-appellant that disallowance in the alternative might be restricted, while applying 14% increment to salary held allowable by Learned CIT(A) in relation to the assessment year 2016-17, concerning the said two trustees.

In this regard, Learned CIT(A) observed in para 5.4 of the impugned order that 10% increase over salary, which had already been found to be reasonable by Learned CIT(A) in relation to assessment year 2016-17 would be in order.

9. Learned DR has submitted that having regard to the object of the charitable trust, like the assessee-appellant, it can safely be said that the trust came to be constituted and got registered for the purpose of imparting of education to the women i.e. for the benefit of said section of public at large, but, this is a case where that two trustees, named above, were paid excessive salaries, i.e. for the benefit of the said two trustees , and not for the benefit of said section of public at large, and as such Learned M/s Jyoti Vidyapeeth Trust Assessing officer was justified in applying the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and section 13(2)(c) of the Act as in force during the relevant period, and thereby disallowing the claim in entirety, and not to the extent the same were found to be excessive.

11. In response, Ld. DR for the departments as contended that this is a case where the authorities below have attracted the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and also the provisions of Section 13(2(c) of the Act, and further that in section 164(2) of the Act, there is no reference to the provisions of Section 13(2)(c) of the Act, and as such, the assessee is not entitled to any benefit of the proviso to section 164(2) of the Act.

12. Admittedly, the issue regarding payment of excessive payment of salary and its reasonableness, as regards the said two trustees was also on issue in the assessment orders pertaining to the assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17.

Accordingly, Learned CIT(A), observed that having regard to substantial increase in respects of the two trustees during assessment year 2016-17, increment by 14% was held justifiable as regards the salaries of the two trustees.

As regards the present assessment year 2017-18, Learned CIT(A) has observed in the impugned order that no such case was made out, and accordingly, held that in case of Dr. Pankaj Garg salary of Rs. 18,80,000/- would be reasonable and in case of Smt. Vidushi Garg salary of Rs. 28,06,000/-would be reasonable , by way of increment of 14% considered reasonable in the previous AY too.