Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

48. In this regard, it is relevant to mention here that in view of the specific findings recorded by Learned CIT(A), this issue of comparison of the salaries paid to the two trustees. Ld. CIT(A) clearly opined that the services rendered by the two specified persons cannot be compared with that of Dr. Rajendra Kumar Patni irrespective of his higher educational qualification, and further that the two have been doing the work of administrative nature and management of the University, whereas Dr. Patni was an employee, whose responsibilities were limited. As regards comparison with data of third party, when the assessee failed to comply with the directions issued by the Appellate Tribunal while restoring the matter to the AO, and the non production of material on the concerned aspects, as desired by the AO, we do not find any merit in the contention on behalf of the assessee that no comparison with any data of third party was made by AO.

50. Further Ld. AR for the assessee has pointed out that in the Financial year 2014-15, there was not much increase in the turnover of the assessee.

51. In this regard, at this stage, it is relevant to refer to the observations made by Learned CIT(A). It was observed in the impugned order that truly it was a case of huge increase in the salary of the two trustees during the year. The contention on behalf of the assessee that the salaries of these two trustees remained static for 3 years was rejected by Learned CIT(A). The reason given by Learned CIT(A) for holding said argument to be not justifiable is that the same was not accompanied by any information ITA No. 328 & 329/JPR/2023 M/s Jyoti Vidyapeeth Trust regarding overall increase in salaries; that the increase in salary of specified persons has to be in line with overall salary hikes during the year; that the comparison had to be the immediately preceding year because the assessee paid amounts of salary considered suitable in that year; and that receipts of the assessee were another factor, which affect the salaries to be paid in comparison to the earlier year.

For want of any evidence, it cannot be said that the increase in the salary of the two trustees was in line with the overall salary hikes during the year. Rather, all this goes to establish that these two trustees were paid ITA No. 328 & 329/JPR/2023 M/s Jyoti Vidyapeeth Trust excessive salaries for their benefits, and said increase in the salaries cannot be said to be in furtherance of the objects of the trust, which is to increase the level of girl education.

54. So far as the impugned order passed in relation to the assessment year 2017-18, out of which second appeal No.329/23 has arisen, Learned CIT(A) has taken into consideration considerable increase in receipts of the trust in the AY 2016-17 as against the receipts of the previous year.

Learned CIT(A) based his decision on the findings recorded in the order relating to AY 2015-16. As noticed above, we have upheld increase in the salary of the two trustees only by 10% as regards AY 2015-16. For the same reasons, we uphold the opinion arrived at by Learned CIT(A). We also uphold the impugned order wherein the factor of incremental increase ITA No. 328 & 329/JPR/2023 M/s Jyoti Vidyapeeth Trust in the salary of the two trustees has been considered so as to grant 14% increase in their salaries as regards the AY 2016-17.