Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. It is not open to the ITO to mechanically follow an earlier assessment order without applying a fresh judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the relevant year. In this case, the ITO merely followed his earlier order and he did not give any reason for disallowance. It is for the ITO to consider the entire position objectively and to find out whether any part of the remuneration paid to the manager, who happens to be a relative of a director, is justified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The reasonableness or excessiveness of the salary paid to the manager cannot be judged subjectively. The AAC took into consideration the fact that the manager was appointed for the first time in 1958 on a salary of Rs. 500 per month when the turnover of the company was Rs. 4,11,489. Gradually by dint of his labour and efficient administration, the turnover of the company has since been increased in the year 1962 to Rs. 8,79,975 and in consideration of his valuable service in that year, his salary was increased to Rs. 1,000 per month. In 1963, although the turnover increased to more than Rs. 13,00,000, there was no increase in the salary. In 1964, when the turnover increased to more than Rs. 18,00,000, his salary was increased to Rs. 1,500 per month and on and from the subsequent year 1965 corresponding to the assessment year 1966-67 the turnover further increased to 18,80,000 and his salary was increased to Rs. 2,000 per month. This salary of Rs. 2,000 continued from that year 1965 till 1972. Although the turnover increased year by year which was Rs. 19,00,000 in 1967, about Rs. 22,00,000 in 1968, more than Rs. 24,00,000 in 1967 and about Rs. 25,00,000 in 1970, save and except in 1966 when the turnover decreased to Rs. 11,26,612 due to limitation of import, the salary of the manager remained the same at Rs. 2,000 per month during all these years from March, 1965. The manager has been rendering wholetime service and apart from the salary, unlike the other employees, he was not paid any commission on sales. In consideration of the cumulative effect of all the evidence and facts and circumstances, the AAC allowed the salary at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per month as against the payment of Rs. 2,000 per month. The fact and circumstances as found by the AAC were not disputed before the Tribunal. The only contention raised before the Tribunal was that the manager was the son of a director and a brother of. another director and as such the remuneration was not paid wholly for commercial reasons. The Tribunal also found that there was no evidence to hold that the manager was paid his remuneration for consideration other than commercial. Merely because he was a relative within the meaning of Section 40(c) of the Act did not entitle the Revenue authority to disallow a part of the remuneration without showing that the services rendered by him were not worthy of salary of the assessee. Considering the amount of the salary, the total salary bill, nature of services rendered by the manager of the concern and the nature of the activity carried on by the assessee and all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal held that the remuneration paid to the manager was not in any way excessive or unreasonable. It cannot be said that the Tribunal in coming to its conclusion did not consider the relevant circumstances. The ITO did not consider any of the facts objectively and from the view-point of a prudent businessman. He has acted in a routine manner without applying his mind to the facts of the case. He has merely followed his earlier order without considering the facts of the case. Even if the earlier order has some bearing or relevance, it is the duty of the ITO to come to his finding on the materials which are available for the assessment years in question. On the facts of this case, it must be held that the assessee has established by evidence that the allowance in question is justifiable and it is neither excessive nor unreasonable having regard to the legitimate business needs of the assessee and the benefit resulting to the company. The overall circumstances established a link between the remuneration and the benefit resulting to the company. The question whether any amount claimed as expenditure or allowance is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the legitimate business needs of the assessee and the benefit derived by or accruing to it therefrom has to be decided on the facts and in the light of the circumstances of each case. The Tribunal has given reason for its finding. In our view, the Tribunal carne to a correct conclusion on the facts of this case. We, therefore, answer the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.