Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on excessive salary disallowance, deems Assessing Officer's actions unjustified. (2)(b)

The Tribunal partly allowed the appellant's appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant on the issue of disallowance of excessive salary paid to relatives. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's actions were unjustified and lacked proper investigation, leading to the deletion of the disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal dismissed the challenge to the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction in the limited scrutiny case, upholding the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Indore.

---

---

Issues involved:
Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer in limited scrutiny case; Disallowance of excessive salary paid to relatives under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer:
The appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2015-16 and challenges the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Indore, which were based on the assessment completed by the ACIT-1(1), Indore under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The appellant raised concerns regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) in a limited scrutiny case. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through the Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection System (CASS) based on reasons including payment to relative persons mismatch. The AO made an addition of Rs. 6,80,000 as excessive salary paid to relatives under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The appellant contended that the AO exceeded the limited scrutiny scope by making this addition without proper authorization. However, the Commissioner upheld the AO's actions. The Tribunal observed that the AO did not provide specific guidelines on what needed to be examined under limited scrutiny for the reason of "payment to related persons mismatch." As a result, the legal ground challenging the AO's jurisdiction was dismissed.

Disallowance of Excessive Salary:
The AO disallowed Rs. 6,80,000 as excessive salary paid to two individuals who were wives of the partners of the firm. The AO restricted the salary claim to Rs. 1,00,000 each, citing legitimate business needs. The Tribunal noted that the AO's disallowance was adhoc, as both individuals were educated and capable of performing their duties. The disallowance was made under section 40A(2)(a) of the Act, which allows for disallowance if the expenditure is considered excessive or unreasonable. However, the AO failed to establish the fair market value of the services provided or the basis for determining the legitimate salary. The AO did not investigate the fair market value, experience of the employees, or compare salaries with similar positions in other companies. The Tribunal found the AO's disallowance unjustified and lacking proper inquiry. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's decision and deleted the disallowance of Rs. 6,80,000 under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appellant's appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant on the issue of disallowance of excessive salary paid to relatives. The Tribunal found that the AO's actions were unjustified and lacked proper investigation, leading to the deletion of the disallowance.

---