Mohata Coal Company Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata V. DCIT, CC-XXI, KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 322/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9624 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 31-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL
• Keywords: Business expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM ./ ITA NO.322/KOL/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-2011) MOHATA COAL COMPANY PVT.LTD. HMP BUILDING 5 TH FLOOR, 4, FAIRLIE PLACE KOLKATA-700001 VS. DCIT, CC-XXI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN PURVA, 8 TH FLOOR, 110 SHANTI PALLI, KOLKATA-700107 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AACCM 1775 F ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL, JCIT SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 21/12/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04/01/2017 / O R D E R PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERTAIN ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, KOLKATA, I N APPEAL NO.19/CC- XXI/CIT(A)C-II/13-14, DATED 09.12.2013, WHICH IN TU RN ARISES OUT OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER SE CTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, (IN SHORT THE ACT), DATED 25 .03.2013. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE QUA THE ASSESSEE ARE THA T THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF FABRICATED METAL & STRUCTURAL PRODUCTS, FILED ITS E-RETURN OF INCOME O N 24.09.2010 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.9,99,292/-. THEREAFTER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSM ENT MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.13,79,177/- OF STAFF WELFARE EXP ENSES AND ITA NO.322/14 MOHATA COAL COMPANY PVT.LTD. 2 RS.5,59,225/- OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR HIGHER STUDIES OF A STAFF OF THE C OMPANY. 3. AGGRIEVED FROM THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO, BY OBSERVING THE FOLLOWIN GS :- 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLAN T AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. A.R. OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS/EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO EXACT RELATIONSH IP BETWEEN MS. MEGHA GOYAL AND ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLA NT COMPANY, COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER OF MS. MEGHA GOYAL, HER EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION AT THE TIME OF HER APPOINTMENT, HER D ESIGNATION IN THE COMPANY'S JOB, FOR WHICH COURSE SHE WENT TO UK, DUR ATION OF COURSE AND UP TO WHICH PERIOD DID SHE WORK IN THE COMPANY AFTER COMPETING HER COURSE. THE AFORESAID DETAILS WERE SU BMITTED BY THE APPELLANT'S A.R. ON EXAMINATION OF DETAILS, IT IS O BSERVED THAT MS. MEGHA GOYAL IS THE DAUGHTER OF BROTHER OF SHRI RAME SH GOYAL, ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY I.E. SHE IS THE NIECE OF THE DIRECTOR. IT IS OBSERVED THAT MS. MEGHA GOYAL WAS A PPOINTED AS 'PUBLIC RELATION OFFICER' OF THE COMPANY W.E.F. 1 ST OCTOBER, 2008 AT THE MONTHLY REMUNERATION OF RS.30,000/- AND OTHER B ENEFITS APPLICABLE TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY. AS PER THE APPOINTMENT LETTER, MS. GOYAL WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR O VERALL SUPERVISION OF THE COMPANY'S MACHINING DIVISION AND ALSO LOOK AFTER DAY TO DAY AFFAIRS WITH THE COMPANY'S VENDORS . AT THE TIME OF HER APPOINTMENT IN THE APPELLANT COMPANY, SHE WAS H OLDING A SIMPLE GRADUATION DEGREE. IT IS EXPLAINED BY THE LD . A.R. THAT IN THE MONTH OF JULY, 2009, MS. MEGHA GOYAL APPROACHED THE COMPANY TO SPONSOR FOR HER HIGHER STUDY IN UK AT THE NOTTINGHA M UNIVERSITY FOR MBA IN THE MANAGEMENT STREAM. ON HER REQUEST, THE C OMPANY HAD AGREED TO SPONSOR HER HIGHER STUDY FOR WHICH SHE AL SO EXECUTED A BOND THAT AFTER COMPLETION OF COURSE SHE WILL WOR K FOR THE COMPANY FOR THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF 3 YEARS AT THE SALARY OF RS.1,35,000/- PER ANNUM. AS PER THE DETAILS SUBMITTED IN THE COURSE O F APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, ON COMPLETION OF HER COURSE MS. GOYAL AGAIN JOINED THE COMPANY IN OCTOBER, 2010 AND LEFT THE COMPANY I N JUNE, 2013. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF FACTS, I AM OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE AO HAS ARRIVED ON THE RIGHT CONCLUSION THAT THE EXP ENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY ON THE HIGHER EDUCATION OF NIECE OF ONE THE DIRECTORS IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION U/S 37 OF THE ACT. ON PERUSAL OF COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER AND SPONSORSH IP AGREEMENT (BOND), IT APPEARS THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS WERE MADE AND PLANNING WAS DONE SO THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE HI GHER STUDIES OF MS. MEGHA GOYAL MAY BE CLAIMED AS BUSINESS EXPENDIT URE OF THE ITA NO.322/14 MOHATA COAL COMPANY PVT.LTD. 3 APPELLANT COMPANY AND CLEVERLY DEBITED UNDER THE HE ADS 'STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES' AND 'TRAVELLING EXPENSES' AND NOT SHOWN SEPARATELY AS 'EDUCATION SPONSORSHIP EXPENSES'. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT ON RECORD THAT MS. MEGHA GOYAL HERSELF APPROAC HED THE APPELLANT'COMPANY FOR SPONSORSHIP OF HER HIGHER EDU CATION AT UK AND THIS HAPPENED ONLY BECAUSE HER PATERNAL UNCLE W AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY. THIS COULD HAVE NOT BEEN POSSIBLE F OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE NOT RELATED TO THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COMPA NY. THE APPELLANT COMPANY INCURRED THE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT O F EXPENDITURE ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT SHE IS A RELATIVE OF THE D IRECTOR. IT IS ARGUED BY THE APPELLANT THAT IT WAS A PRUDENT BUSINESS DEC ISION TO SEND MS. GOYAL FOR HIGHER STUDY SO THAT AFTER HER RETURN, TH E COMPANY MAY REAP THE BENEFITS OF HER EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE TO PROMOTE THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. HOWEVER, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THIS ARGUMENT IS ONLY ON PAPER. IN ACTUAL WHAT BENEFITS WERE DERIVED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY FROM HER HIGHER ED UCATION KNOWLEDGE IS NOT KNOWN EVEN TO THE APPELLANT COMPAN Y ITSELF. OTHERWISE, THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE SUBSTANTIATED I TS CASE STRONGLY BOTH BEFORE THE AO AS WELL IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT DID NOT PRODUCE A SINGLE SUBMISSION OR DA TA OR EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM ABOUT THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH SPONSORSHIP WAS GRANTED FOR HIGHER EDUCATION OF MS. GOYAL. AS MENTI ONED ABOVE, AS PER THE BOND, MS. MEGHA GOYAL WAS TO WORK FOR THE P ERIOD OF 3 YEARS AFTER RETURNING FROM UK. THE SAME BOND SAYS T HAT IF MS. GOYAL LEAVING THE COMPANY BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE BOND PERIOD AT HER OWN WILL, THE COMPANY WILL RECOVER THE TOTAL EX PENSES INCURRED ON HER ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 18% PER ANNUM FROM HER . AS PER THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT'S A.R. IN THE COUR SE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT AN ADMITTED FACT THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON BUT MS. MEGHA GOYAL LEFT THE COMPANY ON HER OWN BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF BOND PERIOD. THUS, IN FACT, AS PER THE 'SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT', THE APPELLANT COMPANY SHOULD HAVE RECOVERED ALL THE EXP ENDITURE ALONG WITH INTEREST FROM MS. GOYAL AND IN PLACE OF CLAIMI NG THE DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES UNDER THE HEADS STAFF WELFARE AND TRAVE LLING EXPENSES, THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE DECLARED THE INTEREST INC OME IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT RECEIVED FROM MS. MEGHA GOYAL FOR BREACH OF BOND. HOWEVER, NOTHING THIS SORT WAS DONE BY THE AP PELLANT COMPANY AND ONLY REASON FOR THIS WAS THAT MS. GOYAL WAS THE NIECE OF SHRI RAMESH GOYAL, DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COM PANY. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY THAT AS PER THE BOND MS. GOYAL AGREED TO WORK FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS AT A CONCESS IONAL SALARY OF RS.1,35,000/- PER ANNUM; IS ALSO AN EYE WASH. INITI ALLY, SHE WAS APPOINTED AT A SALARY OF RS.3,60,000/- PER ANNUM. I T IS NOT KNOWN THAT HOW MUCH SALARY JUMP WAS CONTEMPLATED BY THE A PPELLANT COMPANY FOR HER AFTER COMPLETION OF HER COURSE AT U K AND, THEREFORE, CLAIMING THAT SHE WORKED AT A CONCESSION AL AMOUNT OF SALARY. AS PER THE BOND SHE WAS TO WORK AT THE SALA RY OF RS.1,35,000/- PER ANNUM. CONSIDERING HER INITIAL SA LARY STRUCTURE OF RS.3,60,000/- PER ANNUM, THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS SAVING RS.2,25,000/- PER ANNUM. IN THREE YEARS, THE APPELL ANT COULD HAVE RECOVERED RS.6,75,000/- ONLY IN THE FORM OF CONCESS IONAL ITA NO.322/14 MOHATA COAL COMPANY PVT.LTD. 4 REMUNERATION. WHEREAS, THE APPELLANT HAD INCURRED E XPENDITURE OF RS.19,38,402/-. FURTHER, AS MENTIONED ABOVE, MS. GO YAL LEFT THE COMPANY BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF BOND PERIOD. IN VIEW O F ABOVE FACTS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO HAS ARRIVED ON A CORR ECT CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EX CLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF APPELLANT COMPANY AND, THERE FORE, NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION U/S 37 OF THE ACT. 5.3 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. R.K.K.R. STEELS (P) LTD. , 258 ITR 306 (MAD.), THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUS INESS OF RE- ROLLING AND MANUFACTURING OF STEEL. THE COMPANY CLA IMED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON MEETING THE COST OF TRAVEL TO USA AND THE EXPENDITURE CONNECTED WITH THE EDUCATION OF THE SON OF BALWANT RAI WHO WAS THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY, WAS DEDUCTIBLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AS THE SAID RAJIV RAI HAD ACQUIRED A MB A DEGREE AND HAD LATER ON JOINED THE COMPANY. IT WAS CLAIMED THA T THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BUS INESS OF THE COMPANY AS HE SUBSEQUENTLY BECAME THE DIRECTOR OF T HE COMPANY. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO BUT ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ON FURTHER APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT, THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'IF THE ASSESSEE'S LOGIC WERE TO BE ACCEPTED, IN EV ERY FAMILY OWNED BUSINESS, ALL THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN BRINGING UP THE CHILDREN WHO MAY LATER ON BE GIVEN A ROLE IN BUSINESS AS PAR TNERS OR DIRECTORS COULD BE CLAIMED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN TRAINING THE PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES AND DIRECTORS OF THE BUSINESS. THE EXPENDITURE PERMISSIBLE FOR DEDUCTION IS EXPEND ITURE THAT IS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY LAID OUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. THE EXPENDITURE WHICH A FATHER INCURS OUT OF HIS NATURA L LOVE AND AFFECTION FOR HIS CHILDREN IN MEETING THE COST OF T HEIR EDUCATION CANNOT BECOME BUSINESS EXPENDITURE MERELY BECAUSE H E IS ALSO THE OWNER OR A DIRECTOR OF A BUSINESS IN WHICH THE SON OR DAUGHTER SUBSEQUENTLY TAKES PART. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A SCHEME OF SENDING PEOPLE ABROAD FOR TRAINING WITH STIPULATION THAT AFTER RECEIVING THE BENEFIT OF TRA INING THEY SHOULD WORK FOR THE COMPANY AND THAT MONEYS EXPENDED ON SU CH TRAINING WERE IN FACT, MONEYS WHICH WERE EXPENDED FOR THE PU RPOSE OF OBTAINING THE BENEFIT OF THEIR EXPERT SERVICE AFTER THEY ACQUIRE PROFICIENCY IN THE FIELD IN WHICH THEY HAD BEEN SEN T FOR TRAINING. IT IS EVIDENT THAT A DIRECTOR- FATHER HAD, INSTEAD OF INC URRING EXPENSES FROM HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT, WHICH HE SHOULD HAVE, HA D, MERELY CHOSEN TO DEBIT THE EXPENDITURE OF HIS SON'S EDUCAT ION TO THE BUSINESS OF WHICH HE WAS THE DIRECTOR. SUCH EXPENDI TURE DOES NOT BECOME BUSINESS EXPENDITURE, MERELY BECAUSE THE FAT HER WAS IN A POSITION TO DEBIT THE EXPENDITURE TO THE ACCOUNTS O F THE BUSINESS. THE TRIBUNAL WAS CLEARLY IN ERROR IN ACCEPTING AND ALLOWING THE CLAIM WHICH HAD BEEN RIGHTLY DISALLOWED BY THE AO AND THE CIT(A) IN APPEAL. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOREIGN TRAINING OF RAJIV, SON OF THE DIRECTOR OF ITA NO.322/14 MOHATA COAL COMPANY PVT.LTD. 5 THE COMPANY CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FO R THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS AND WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION.' IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT COMPANY THE FACTS ARE ALMO ST SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF R.K.K.R. STEELS (P) LTD. THE A PPELLANT COMPANY DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS HAVING ANY SCHEME FOR SENDING THEIR EMPLOYEES ABROAD FOR TRAINING AND AS TO WHETHER PRIOR TO MS. MEGHA GOYAL ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE WAS ALSO SENT ABROAD FOR TRAINING. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, ON FACTS OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY T HE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE MADRAS HIGH COURT, IT IS HELD TH AT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.13,79,177/- AND RS.5,59,225/- DEB ITED UNDER THE HEADS 'STAFF WELFARE' AND 'TRAVELING' AGGREGATING T O RS.19,38,402/- IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE U/S 37 OF THE ACT. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUN D NO. 2 IS DISMISSED. 4. NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER & CIT (A) WAS WRONG & AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT (A) WAS WRONG IN N OT ALLOWING RS.13,79,177/ - OUT OF STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES & RS. 5,59,225/ - OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES I NCURRED BY; THE APPELLANT FOR HIGHER STUDIES OF A STAFF OF THE COMPANY. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, APPELLANT MAY ALTER, ADD & DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 4.1 THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT MISS MEGHA GOYAL HAS JOINED THE COMPANY FROM 1 ST OCTOBER 2008 AT THE REMUNERATION OF RS. 30,000/- PER MONTH FOR THE POST OF PUBLIC RELATION OFFICER (PRO). SHE HAD BEEN LOOKING AFTER OVERALL HR SUPERVISION OF THE CO MPANY`S MACHINING DIVISION AND ALSO OBSERVED THE DAY TO DAY AFFAIRS O F THE COMPANY`S VENDOR. IN THE MONTH OF JULY 2010, SHE APPROACHED T HE COMPANY TO SPONSOR FOR HER HIGHER STUDY IN UK AT THE NOTTINGHA M UNIVERSITY FOR MBA ITA NO.322/14 MOHATA COAL COMPANY PVT.LTD. 6 IN THE MANAGEMENT STREAM. ON HER REQUEST, THE COMPA NY HAS AGREED TO SPONSOR HER HIGHER STUDY. IN THIS CONTEXT, SHE HAS EXECUTED A BOND THAT AFTER COMPLETION OF HER STUDY, SHE WILL AGAIN JOIN THE COMPANY FOR A MINIMUM PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AT A REMUNERATION OF RS. 1,35,000/- PER ANNUM. HER COURSE WAS FOR 12 MONTHS ONLY WHICH WAS ENDED IN SEPTEMBER 2010. IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2010 SHE AG AIN JOINED THE COMPANY AT A REMUNERATION OF RS. 1,35,000/- PER ANN UM AND SHE HAS DRAWN THE SAME AS HER FIRST YEAR REMUNERATION FROM THE COMPANY. SHE HAS LEFT THE COMPANY IN THE MONTH OF JUNE 2013 DUE TO HER PREGNANCY. SHE HAD BEEN WORKED WITH THE COMPANY ABOUT 32 ( TH IRTY TWO) MONTHS AFTER HER STUDY. SHE WORKED WITH THE COMPANY AT A L OW PACKAGE AFTER COMPLETION OF HER STUDY AND DURING HER SERVICE PERI OD THE COMPANY HAS REAPED THE BENEFITS AND EXPERTISE TO PROMOTE ITS BU SINESS OPERATIONS AND MAINTAIN LABOUR HARMONY. THE LD AR ALSO SUBMITTED B EFORE US THE APPOINTMENT LETTER OF MEGHA GOYAL, BOND EXECUTED BY MEGHA GOYAL, COPY OF HER DEGREE ISSUED BY THE NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY. THEREFORE, HER STUDY EXPENSES SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 4.2 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE H AS PRIMARILY RELIED ON THE STAND TAKEN BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED IN EARLIER PARA AND IS NOT BEING REPEATED FOR THE S AKE OF BREVITY. 4.3 HEAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS MERIT I N THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, AS THE PROPOSITIONS CANVASSED BY THE LD A R FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS NARRATED BY HIM. AS LD A R POINTED OUT THAT MISS ITA NO.322/14 MOHATA COAL COMPANY PVT.LTD. 7 MEGHA GOYAL WAS WORKING WITH THE COMPANY PRIOR TO H ER HIGHER STUDY. MISS MEGHA GOYAL HAD EXECUTED A BOND STATING THAT A FTER HER HIGHER STUDY SHE WOULD WORK IN THE COMPANY. IN FACT SHE WORKED I N COMPANY FOR 32 MONTHS AFTER HER HIGHER STUDY. THE COMPANY HAD REAP ED THE BENEFITS AND EXPERTISE TO PROMOTE ITS BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND MA INTAIN LABOUR HARMONY. THE LD CIT(A) RELIED ON CERTAIN JUDGMENTS WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREF ORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) NEEDS TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 4.4 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 04/01/ 2017. S D/ - (A.T.VARKEY) SD/ - (DR. A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA ; ! DATED 04/01/2017 ' $%& /PRAKASH MISHRA , 0 . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) % & , / ITAT, 1. / THE APPELLANT-MOHATA COAL CO. PVT. LTD. 2. / THE RESPONDENT.- DCIT, CC-XXI, KOLKATA 3. 1 ( ) / THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 4. 1 / CIT 5. 23 4 0056 , 56 , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 4 78 / GUARD FILE. 2 0 //TRUE COPY//