Tribunal rules directors' remuneration not taxable due to lack of company act approval

The Tribunal recalled its earlier order and directed a fresh decision on the taxability of directors' remuneration. It was held that no remuneration had accrued to the assessee from Modipon Ltd. due to the lack of Central Government approval as required by the Companies Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on legal provisions and precedents, concluding that the assessee was not liable to pay tax on the remuneration. The issue regarding the determination of the value of free water/electricity was not addressed as it was not pursued by the assessee's counsel. The outcome favored the assessee, affirming that no remuneration was taxable.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in recalling its earlier order and directing a fresh decision on the taxability of the directors' remuneration.
2. Whether the remuneration of Rs. 34,016 from Modipon Ltd. accrued to the assessee during the relevant assessment year.
3. Whether the determination of the value of free water/electricity could be made in accordance with Rule 3(d) when the assessee had proven the value based on actual consumption.
4. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that no remuneration from Modipon Ltd. accrued to the assessee during the relevant assessment year.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Recall of Tribunal's Order:
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order dated August 30, 1978, based on the assessee's application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal accepted that it had relied on a wrong section of the Companies Act, which had no application to the assessment year under appeal. The Tribunal's action was justified as reliance on a wrong provision of law is considered an error apparent from the record. This decision aligns with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50, which holds that a mistake apparent from the record must be an "obvious" and "patent" mistake. The Tribunal's recall was affirmed in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.

2. Accrual of Remuneration:
The main question was whether any income by way of remuneration had actually accrued to the assessee and constituted taxable income for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal held that no real income by way of remuneration from Modipon had accrued to the assessee. This conclusion was based on the interpretation of Article 111 of the articles of association of Modipon and section 310 of the Companies Act, 1956, which required Central Government approval for any increase in directors' remuneration. The Tribunal found that without such approval, the remuneration could not be considered to have accrued to the assessee.

3. Determination of Value of Free Water/Electricity:
This issue was not pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee and was therefore returned unanswered.

4. No Accrual of Remuneration:
The Tribunal's decision that no remuneration had accrued to the assessee was based on several factors:
- Article 111(2) of the articles of association required Central Government approval for the remuneration to be operative.
- The board of directors had passed a resolution on July 17, 1972, forgoing any remuneration for the year ending February 28, 1973.
- The net profits of Modipon, which determined the remuneration, could only be ascertained at the end of the accounting year, i.e., February 28, 1973.
- The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in E.D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27 and CIT v. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42, which stated that income accrues only when the right to receive it becomes vested.

The Tribunal's view was that since the directors had forgone their remuneration before the right to receive it had accrued, no remuneration had accrued to the assessee, and thus, he was not liable to pay tax on it.

Conclusion:
The references were disposed of in favor of the assessee, affirming that no remuneration had accrued and was thus not taxable. The Tribunal's recall of its earlier order was also upheld as justified. The determination of the value of free water/electricity was not addressed as it was not pressed by the assessee's counsel.

---