1986 (1) TMI 154

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and, therefore, it did not fall under the mischief of any disallowance under the statute. He relied on the cases of Kanhaiyalal Agarwal vs. ITO (1984) 18 TTJ (Jab) 39 and ITO vs. Kothari (Mds) Ltd. (1984) 18 TTJ 473 and also the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. vs. CIT (1981) 24 CTR (P&H) 246 : (1982) 136 ITR 361 (P&H). The ld. departmental representative Mr. M.P. Singh, on the other hand, in respect of this issue submitted that there was no evidence on record regarding use of the said Guest House by employees and directors and Expln. of s. 37 which has undergone a change w.e.f. 1st April 1976. hits the assessee's claim. 3. After taking into consideration the rival submissions and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... source. Moreover, he submitted that the return was filed on 6th June, 1979, it was revised on 15th Feb., 1982 and the assessment was framed on 2nd Aug., 1983 and nowhere the delay was attributed to the assessee. He, however, was fair enough to say that there was no finding on merit given by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. departmental representative could not controvert the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the assessee. Under the circumstances, for the sake of natural justice, we restore back this issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to him to read judicate the same de novo on merit after granting an opportunity to the assessee and considering the submissions to be made before him in this regard. 5. Coming to the Revenue's ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on record that she did any work. He drew our attention to the order-sheet entry as per which it is indicated that the ITO demanded justification of the said salary from the assessee on 22nd Dec., 1982 and no explanation whatsoever was furnished by the assessee before the lower authorities. The ld. departmental representative submitted that the CIT(A) has cast the burden on the Revenue that the ITO has not categorically established that Rita Garg was not getting the salary for the work done. The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that since during the year under consideration there was lot of work secured and all other directors and chairman were pre-occupied, this lady was required to look after the business locally....