TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....circumstances of the case and particularly when the Assessing Officer, in the assessment, has clearly established that the payment towards salary made to Col. (Retd) Navneet Chabra, Executive Director, is excessive, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the application of sec.13(1)(c) is not warranted in the case of the assessee for the A Y 2011-12. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in entertaining the letter dt.11.01.2008 from the International Trustee relating to remuneration on appointment to Col. (Retd.) Naveneet Chabra, which is additional evidence, filed by the assessee during the appellate proceedings, without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer, in contravention of Rule 46A of I T Rules, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt by any standard is abnormal. He also observed that the assessee did not produce any evidence to show the increment to be given to the Executive Director. He also noted that the appointment letter does not mention payment of bonus, ex-gratia etc., whereas Shri Chabra has been paid an amount of Rs. 80,000 as Christmas Gift. Thus, the Assessing Officer concluded that the payment being made by the assessee to Shri Chabra is in violation of provision contained in S.13(1)(c) or the Act, and therefore, the assessee will not be eligible for exemption under S.11 of the Act on the excess salary paid to Shri Navneet Chabra, during the year. The Assessing Officer while quantifying the reasonable salary for the impugned assessment year allowed increm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., she deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. The basic grievance of the Learned Departmental Representative is not related to the issue whether the amount paid is reasonable or not. She submitted that the learned CIT(A) on the basis of a letter submitted before her, has deleted the addition, whereas before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has not produced any evidence to show that the salary paid to the Executive Director in the initial year of appointment is Rs. 10,80,000 and not Rs. 7,20,000. She therefore, submitted that since the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition by considering a letter, the facts stated wherein were never br....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of appointment as well as in the assessment year under consideration, was before the Assessing Officer. therefore, it cannot be said that the information submitted before the learned CIT(A) is in the nature of additional evidence. The learned Authorised Representative relying upon a number of judicial authorities submitted before us that if evidence submitted is of clinching nature, then no useful purpose would be served in again remitting the matter to the assessing authority. 8. We have considered the submission of the parties and perused the material on record as well as the orders of the Revenue authorities. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that in the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative admitted that Shri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s is concerned, it is to be noted that the department is objecting to the letter submitted before the learned CIT(A) by the assessee to show that the actual salary paid to Shri Chabra during the initial year of appointment is Rs. 10,80,000 and not Rs. 7,20,000, which is only the basic pay. In our view, the information submitted before the learned CIT(A) is not in the nature of additional evidence, on which the learned CIT(A) could have asked the Assessing Officer to verify authenticity of the assessee's claim. It is a fact on record that assessment for the assessment year 2008-099 has been completed by the Assessing Officer under S.143(3). It is also not disputed that the assessee, being a society registered under S.12A of the Act, is oblig....