Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay Vs.
M/S. Walchand & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., Bombay [1967] INSC 67 (17 March 1967)
17/03/1967 SHAH, J.C.
SHAH, J.C.
SIKRI, S.M.
RAMASWAMI, V.
CITATION: 1967 AIR 1435 1967 SCR (3) 214
CITATOR INFO :
F 1969 SC 609 (5) RF 1970 SC1076 (8) R 1973
SC 520 (9) F 1976 SC 640 (11)
ACT:
Indian Income-tax Act (11 of 1922), ss.
10(2)(xv) and 33(4)Increase in Director's remuneration not reflected in
assessee's profits--If allowable.
Appellate Tribunal-Jirisdiction-Reasons in
support of decisions, if necessary.
HEADNOTE:
The Income-tax Officer disallowed the
increase in the remuneration off the Directors and Officers of the assesseecompany
since the increase was not reflected in ',he increase in the profits of the
assessee and was on that account not expenditure laid out wholly and
exclusively for the purposes of the business under s. 10(2)(xv) of the
Income-,tax Act. The order was modified by the Appellate Tribunal. On reference
the High Court answered the question against the Revenue, holding that the
Tribunal acted without evidence in partially disallowing the increase in
respect of certain officers.
In appeal to this Court, HELD : The appeal
must be dismissed.
The practice of recording a decision without
reasons in support cannot but be severely deprecated. Though the Tribunal is
not a Court, it is invested with judicial power to lie exercised in manner
similar to the procedure.
Authority to "pass such orders thereon
as it thinks fit" in s. 33(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 is not
arbitrary; the expression is intended to define the jurisdiction or the
Tribunal to deal with and determine questions which arise out of the
subject-matter of the appeal in the light of the evidence, and consistently
with the justice of the case. In the hierarchy of authorities the Appellate
Tribunal is the final fact finding body : its decisions on questions of fact
are not liable to be questioned before the High Court.
[216H-217C] When a claim for allowance under
s. 10(2)(xv) of the Income tax Act is made, the income-tax authorities have to
decide whether the expenditure claimed as an allowance was incurred voluntarily
and on grounds of commercial expediency. In applying the test of commercial
expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively
laid out for the purpose of -the business, reasonableness, of tile expenditure
must be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the
Revenue. An employer in, fixing the remuneration of his employees is entitled
to consider the extent of his business, the nature of the duties to be
performed, and the special altitude of the employee, future Prospects of
extension of the business and a host of other related circumstances. The rule
that increased remuneration can only be justified if there be corresponding
increase in the profits of the employer is erroneous. [217F-218B] 218B]
CIVIL APPELLATE,ARE JURISDICTION : Civil
Appeals Nos. 279 and 280 of 1966, 215 Appeals by special leave from the
judgment and order dated September 4, 1962 of the Bombay High Court in
Income-tax Reference No. 23 of 1961.
S. K. Mitra, T. A. Ramachandran, S. P. Nayyar
for R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant (in both the appeals).
J. B. Dadachanji and O. C. Math r, for the
respondent (in both the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J. The respondent (hereinafter called 'the assessee') is a private
limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1913.
The assessee carries on the business of
acting as Managing Agents for nine public limited Companies. The business of
the assessee was managed by three Directors. Each Director was paid a
remuneration of Rs. 2,500 per month. The assessee had employed three executive
officers to administer its affairs. By resolution dated July 9, 1952, the
remuneration of each of the Directors of the assessee was increased with
retrospective effect from April 1, 1952 by Rs. 1,000 per month and of two out
of the three officers by Rs. 500 per month and of the remaining officer by Rs.
750 per month. In the year 1953 the remuneration of each of the Directors was
increased by Rs. 500 per month and of each of the officers by Rs. 250 per
month.
In proceedings for assessment of income for
the years 195354 and 1954-55 the Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee to
show cause why the increase in the remuneration of the Directors and officers
should not be disallowed in the computation of the taxable income of the
assessee. The assessee submitted that the managed Companies had considerably
increased the area and activities of the business and they had undertaken new
lines which entailed greater burden on the Directors and officers of the
assessee. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the increase in the remuneration of
the Directors and officers of the assessee. He was of the view that since the
increase in the remuneration or the salary of the officers "was not
reflected in the increase in the profits of the assessee", it was not
expenditure which could be justified as laid out wholly and necessarily for the
purposes of the business under s. 10 (2) (xv) of the Indian Income-,tax Act. In
appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order. The
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal modified the order of assessment. The Tribunal
observed that "it was not for the Income-tax Officer to run the assessee's
business and to fix the salary of every member of the staff. That, however,
does not mean that it is open to an assessee to allow unreasonable rise in the
salaries without a valid reason.
It may amount to giving a gift in the garb of
a salary".
The Tribunal then directed that 216
considering the salaries previously drawn 'by the Directors, "salary at
the rate of Rs. 4,000 per month in each case be allowed as a revenue
deduction". In making this order the Tribunal apparently lost sight of the
fact that in the account year 1952-53 the Directors received Rs. 42,000 as
remuneration for the whole year, and it was only in the year 1953-54 that the
Directors received Ps. 48,000 as remuneration. The Tribunal also directed that
in regard to each employee increase in salary not exceeding Rs. 3,000 per annum
as compared to the preceding year's assessment be allowed as a permissible
deduction. The Tribunal gave no reasons for disallowing the balance of the
salary paid to the three officers.
The Tribunal submitted the following question
for determination of the High Court of Bombay :"Whether on the facts and
in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal acted without evidence in
disallowing Rs. 30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand) ?" The High Court was of
the view that the Tribunal acted without evidence in partially disallowing the
increase in the remuneration of the three executive officers during the
assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55. The Commissioner of Income-tax has appealed
to this Court, with special leave.
The assessee claimed the additional
remuneration paid to the Directors and to the executive officers as a
permissible allowance under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
which reads "Such profits or gains shall be computed after making tile
following allowances, namely (xv) any expenditure not being an allowance of the
nature described in any of the clauses (i) to (xiv) inclusive, and not being in
the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee laid out
or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of such business, profession
or vocation." The remuneration paid to the executive officers was not of
the nature allowable under cls. (i) to (xiv) : nor was it of the nature of capital
expenditure, or personal expenses of the, assessee. The Income-tax Officer
disallowed the entire increase in the remuneration holding that it was not
expended "wholly and necessarily" for the purpose of such business.
The Tribunal without recording 'lily reasons partially disallowed the amount as
a permissible. deduction.
It is necessary to emphasize that though the
Tribunal 217 is not a Court, it is invested with judicial power to be exercised
in manner similar to the exercise of power of an appellate Court acting under
the Code of Civil Procedure.
Authority to ';pass such orders thereon as it
thinks fit" in s. 33(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is not arbitrary :
the expression is intended to define the jurisdiction 'of the Tribunal to deal
with and determine questions which arise out of the subject-matter of the
appeal in the light of the evidence, and consistently with the justice of the
else. In the hierarchy of authorities the Appellate Tribunal is the final
fact-finding body; its decisions on questions of fact are not liable to be
questioned before the High Court. The nature at the jurisdiction predicates
that the Tribunal will approach and decide the case in a judicial spirit and
for that purpose it must indicate the disputed questions before it with
evidence pro and con and record its reasons in support of the decision. The
practice of recording a decision without reasons in support cannot but be
severely deprecated.
In paragraph 2 of their order the Tribunal
correctly set out the principle applicable to claims for deduction of
expenditure incurred in payment of remuneration to its employees by the
assessee. But for partially rejecting the claim for allowance of the amount
paid, no reasons were recorded. If the Tribunal was satisfied that the expenditure
was laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business
of the assessee there was no reason why the full amount expended should not
have been allowed. It is open to the Tribunal to come to a conclusion either
that the alleged payment is not real or that it is not incurred by the assessee
in the character of a trader or that it is not laid out wholly and exclusively
for the purpose of the business of the assessee and to disallow it.
But it is not the function of the Tribunal to
determine the remuneration which in their view should be paid to In employee of
the assessee. When a claim for allowance under s. 10 (2) (xv) of the Income-tax
Act is made, the Income-tax authorities have to decide whether the expenditure
claimed as an allowance was incurred voluntarily and on grounds of commercial
expediency. In applying the test of commercial expediency for determining
whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of
the business, reasonableness of the Expenditure has to be adjudged from the
point of view of the businessman and not of the Revenue. The Income-tax Officer
was of the view that there was no adequate increase in the earnings of the
assessee, for the increase in remuneration was not reflected in the increase in
profits of the assessee and that it appeared that is compared to the previous
years, the business profits disclosed by the assessee had fallen by Rs. 2 lakhs
and therefore the increase a expenditure could not be justified as laid out wholly
and necessarily for the purposes of the business. But an employer in fixing the
remuneration of his employees is entitled to consider the extent 218 of his
business, the nature of the duties to be performed., and the special aptitude
of the employee, future prospects of extension of the business and a host of
other related circumstances. The rule that increased remuneration can only be
justified if there be corresponding increase in the profits of the employer is,
in our judgment, erroneous.
The Tribunal did not agree with the view, of
the Income-tax Officer. That is clear from the observations made in paragraph 2
of their order. But, without assigning any reasons, the Tribunal allowed the
claim only partially. The High Court on a careful consideration has pointed out
that the work of the assessee has increased considerably and has become more
strenuous by reason of the prosperity of the managed Companies and it would be
reasonable and natural to infer -that "the strain on both the Directors
and the top executives had increased justifying increase in their
remunerations. In their view the fact that additional remuneration was not
sanctioned in favour of other executive officers is by itself not a ground for
regarding the expenditure incurred as otherwise than wholly and exclusively
laid out or expended for the put-pose of the business. We agree with the High
Court that the order of the Tribunal disallowing the claim for allowance of the
whole of the additional remuneration was not supported by any evidence.
The appeals therefore fail and are dismissed
with costs. One hearing fee.
Y.P. Appeals dismissed.
LA Sup.C1/67--2,500,-23-1-68-GlPF.
Back
