SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(Cal) 86

High Court Of Calcutta
S. C. Deb, Dipak Kumar Sen
REFORM FLOUR MILLS (PVT) LTD. - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Respondent
Income-Tax Reference 166  Of  1970
Decided On : 03/03/1976

Advocates Appeared:
AJIT SEN GUPTA, Debi Pal, SANJIB DUTTA, SUHAS SEN

The disallowance of remuneration and perquisite to the managing director suffering from physical handicap was justified.

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - Section 10 (4a) - Disallowance of remuneration and perquisite - Whether disallowance of remuneration and perquisite to managing director suffering from physical handicap was justified - Held, no.

Fact of the Case:

The assessee, a private limited company, appointed Mahabir Prasad Jatia and G. D. Jatia as joint managing directors for a term of 5 years. They were sanctioned a remuneration of Rs. 3,000 per month each and provided with free furnished accommodation, valued at Rs. 4,500 each. Mahabir Prasad suffered from a serious physical handicap in that he had an almost totally impaired vision. The ITO disallowed the entire remuneration paid to Mahabir Prasad under Section 10 (4a) of the I. T. Act, 1922, and also added back a sum of Rs. 4,500 as value of the rent-free furnished accommodation provided for Mahabir Prasad. On appeal, the AAC confirmed the assessment of the ITO. The Tribunal found that Mahabir Prasad was actively engaged in looking after the affairs of the assessee even though under a handicap. The Tribunal held that the total disallowance of the remuneration and the perquisite by way of free furnished accommodation could not be justified in these facts and circumstances. The Tribunal allowed Rs. 24,000 on account of remuneration paid to Mahabir Prasad.

Finding of the Court:

The Tribunal had taken note of the entire evidence which was produced before it. The Tribunal had based its decision for partial disallowance of the remuneration paid to Mahabir Prasad on relevant factors. The conclusion reached by the Tribunal was not perverse or was one a prudent businessman could not have arrived at.

Issues: Whether the disallowance of remuneration and perquisite to the managing director suffering from physical handicap was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal had taken note of the entire evidence and based its decision on relevant factors. The conclusion reached by the Tribunal was not perverse or was one a prudent businessman could not have arrived at.

Final Decision: The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the revenue.

DIPAK KUMAR SEN, J.

( 1 ) THE assessee. Reform Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. ; Calcutta, has initiated this reference under Section 66 (2) of the I. T, Act, 1922. As directed by this court, the Tribunal has referred the following question:" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowances made in the year 1960-61, under Section 10 (4a) of the I. T. Act, 1922, in respect of the sum of Rs. 12,000 being a part of the remuneration paid and a sum of Rs. 4,500 being the value of the free furnished accommodation provided for the managing director, Sri Mahabir Prasad Jatia, was right in law ? "

( 2 ) THE facts found and/or admitted in this reference are, inter alia, that the assessee is a private limited company. The assessment year involved is 1960-61. The corresponding previous year is the year ended 31st December, 1959. Under a resolution dated the 3rd October, 1959, Mahabir Prasad Jatia and G. D. Jatia were appointed the joint managing directors of the assessee with effect from the 1st October, 1958, for a term of 5 years. They were sanctioned remuneration of Rs. 3,000 per month each and in addition were provided with free furnished accommodation, which were valued at Rs. 4,500 each.

( 3 ) IT is found that Mahabir Prasad Jatia at the relevant time suffered from a serious physical handicap in that he had an almost totally impaired vision.

( 4 ) IN the assessment, the ITO disallowed the entire remuneration paid to Mahabir Prasad under Section 10 (4a) of the I. T. Act, 1922, and also added back a sum of Rs. 4,500 as vaule of the rent-free furnished accommodation provided for Mahabir Prasad. He held that by reason of the said physical handicap Mahabir Prasad could not have rendered any service to the assessee.

( 5 ) FROM the assessment an appeal was preferred by the assessee to the AAC, who confirmed the assessment of the ITO. A further appeal was preferred by the assessee to the Tribunal.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal considered the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that Mahabir Prasad was actively engaged in looking after the affairs of the assessee even though under a handicap. The Tribunal found that in the capacity of a joint managing director it was possible for Mahabir Prasad to render valuable service, and held that the total disallowance of the remuneration and the perquisite by way of. free furnished accommodation could not be justified in these facts and circumstances.

( 7 ) THE Tribunal next considered what remuneration would be adequate and reasonable for Mahabir Prasad, having regard to the business needs of the assessee and the benefits derived by the assessee from the latter's appointment. The following facts were found and considered. (a) The same amount of remuneration was being paid to the other joint managing director, G. D. Jatia, actively engaged in looking after the affairs of the company. (b) The turnover for the year in question aggregated Rs. 1,85,24,105 and the net profit was shown at Rs. 8,84,952. (c) The business of the assessee, viz. , flour milling was under Government control, but a major part of it was in respect of free sales. (d) The part of the business under Government control involved a lot of complicated work.

( 8 ) THE Tribunal found that it was not possible for G. D. Jatia, the other managing director" alone to handle all the work and that the other managing director, Mahabir Prasad, was not merely a dummy and his services were in fact required by the assessee. The Tribunal considered a statement of the assessee giving particulars of the work performed by Mahabir Prasad.

( 9 ) ON such facts and evidence, the; Tribunal found that the services of Mahabir Prasad could not be at par with those of G. D. Jatia, and the same did not entitle Mahabir Prasad to the entire remuneration and pre-quisite claimed.

( 10 ) THE Tribunal also noted that the directors and their relatives were exercising control over the assessee and as such observed that the remuneration was being





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top