IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO. 5199/DEL/2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2014-15 CHANGEX SERVICES PVT. LTD., D-134, 1 ST FLOOR, EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI-110065 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AA EC C3268P ASSESSEE BY : SH. SHARAD SHAH, CA REVENUE BY : MS. ALKA GAUTAM, SR. DR DATE OF HEAR ING: 26 . 0 8 .20 2 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01 .0 9 .20 2 1 ORDER PER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, NEW DELHI DATED 11.05.20 18. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SALARY AND INCENTIVES PAID TO THE DIRECTORS OF RS.1,05,00,000/- U/S 40A(2 )(A). THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 75% AND ALLOWED 25% OF THE CLAIM HOLDING IT AS REASONABLE. 3. THE RELEVANT UNDISPUTED FACTS EXAMINED FOR ADJUD ICATION FOR THE ISSUE WERE THAT, ITA NO.5199/DEL/2018 CHANGEX SERVICES PVT. LTD. 2 A. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED IN MARCH 2011 , ENGAGED IN CONSULTANCY SERVICES, HAVING TWO SHAREHO LDER DIRECTORS NAMELY, MR. SHALABH SAHAI AND RAHUL NAINW AL. B. OWING TO ITS NASCENT STAGE OF SET-UP, THE SHAREHOLDER/DIRECTORS I.E. MR. SHALABH SAHAI AND RA HUL NAINWAL, DID NOT DRAW ANY EXPENDITURE TOWARDS, THEI R 'SALARY/ REMUNERATION/ INCENTIVES'. C. DURING THE CURRENT YEAR, THE DIRECTORS RECEIVED (I) A 'DIRECTORS REMUNERATION' OF RS.1,00,000/-; AND (II) AN 'INCENTIVE' OF RS.1,05,00,000/-. D. THE AMOUNT WAS TREATED AS 'SALARY' IN THE HANDS OF THE DIRECTORS AND TDS WAS ACCORDINGLY DEDUCTED U/S 192 OF THE ACT. E. THE AO HAD QUESTIONED THE TRANSACTION UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY A ND THE TWO SHAREHOLDER/ DIRECTORS AND SOUGHT FOR SUBMI SSION OF DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE/ PROVE THE 'REASONABLE NESS OF THE PAYMENT ALONG WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES'. F. THE AO HELD THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID IS UNREASONABLE A ND ALSO THAT IT WAS A STRATEGY TO BENEFIT THE DIRECTOR S INSTEAD OF PAYING THE DIVIDEND BY THE COMPANY. THE AO HELD THAT IT WAS A PLOY TO AVOID PAYMENT OF DIVIDEND TAX. 4. HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERU SED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ITA NO.5199/DEL/2018 CHANGEX SERVICES PVT. LTD. 3 5. WE FIND THAT THE DIRECTORS WERE MBA HOLDERS FROM THE INSTITUTION KNOWN AS IRMA, ANAND. IT IS A FACT ON R ECORD THAT THE SHAREHOLDER DIRECTORS HAVE NOT DRAWN MUCH SALARY IN THE EARLIER YEARS OWING TO NASCENT STAGE OF FORMATION OF THE CO MPANY. WHILE DISALLOWING THE REMUNERATION PAID U/S 40A(2)( A), WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VAL UE OF THE SERVICES IN COMPARISON WITH ANY OTHER INDUSTRY AV ERAGES . MOREOVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, EVEN IF IT IS PRESUM ED THAT THE DIVIDEND HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE COMPANY, THEN ALS O IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE SHAREHOLDER DIRECTORS ONL Y. THE RECIPIENTS WOULD ENJOY THE TAX FREE BENEFIT. THE FINDING OF THE AO THAT PAYMENT OF HIGH SALARY IS A RUSE TO AVOID P AYMENT OF DIVIDEND TAX IS NOT FOUND TO BE ON A REASONABLE GRO UND AS THE RECEIPT OF SALARY BY THE DIRECTORS IS TAXED AT MAXI MUM MARGINAL RATE. SIMILARLY, WE ARE UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THE RAISO N D'TRE OF THE LD. CIT (A) RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO 75% WIT HOUT ANY GOOD ENOUGH REASON. 6. IN A NUTSHELL, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES U/S 40A(2)(A) WITHOUT EXAMINING ANY ANALOGOUS CASES CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/09/2021. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (DR. B. R. R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER AC COUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 01/09/2021 *SUBODH KUMAR, SR. PS*