Nainas Apparel P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee

BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SANJAY GARG, (JM) सव ी बी.आर.बा करन, लेखा सद य एवं ी संजय गग , या यक सद य के सम

आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7826/Mum/2010 ( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

Naina's Apparel Pvt Ltd, बनाम/ Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax- 13/14, New Majestic Shopping 5(1), Vs. Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, 144 J S S Road, M K Road, Girgaon, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400004 (अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)

थायी ले ख ा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AABCN1197B

अपीलाथ ओर से / Assessee by Shri Mayur Kishnawala/ Keyur Dhami यथ क" ओर से/ Revenue by Shri Asghar Jain V P

सन ु वाई क" तार&ख / Date of Hearing : 15.1.2015 घोषणा क" तार&ख /Date of Pronouncement : 13..2.2015

आदे श / O R D E R

Per B.R.BASKARAN, Accountant Member:

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 01- 09-2010 passed by Ld CIT(A)-9, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of following expenses:-

(a) Staff Welfare expenses - Rs.3,40,000/- (b) Donation - Rs. 10,000/-

2. The first issue relates to the disallowance made out of staff welfare expenses claimed by the assessee. The AO noticed that the assessee has 2 ITA. No 7826/Mum/2010

paid a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- as fees to M/s S.P. Jain Management School on behalf of one of the directors of the assessee company. The assessee claimed the same as expenditure under the head "Staff Welfare expenses". The AO, however, disallowed the said claim and the Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same by holding that the education program would only improve the personal skill of the director and hence the same cannot be considered to have been incurred for business purposes.

3. We heard the parties on this issue. The Ld A.R submitted that M/s

S.P. Jain Management School has started a course on Management

exclusively for persons carrying on Family business. The assessee-

company is also a family controlled business entity and hence it has

admitted one of the directors in this programme. He further submitted

that one of the condition prescribed for admitting in this course was that

the candidate should be sponsored by a business entity. The ld. AR

accordingly submitted that the assessee, by admitting its director in this

course, has obtained benefit due to the enrichment of knowledge in better

management of family controlled business entities. He further submitted

that the ld. CIT(A) has taken a view that the director was attending the

class whole time, i.e., without attending to the business of the assessee.

The ld. AR submitted that the course was conducted only for one week in

a month and the concerned director was attending to the business for

remaining three weeks. He further submitted that the concerned director

was working with the company and drawing salary for the past one and

half years before getting admission into the course. Accordingly, he 3 ITA. No 7826/Mum/2010

submitted the assessee company has paid the fees on business

considerations and hence, the ld. CIT(A) was not right in observing that

the education programme has actually enriched the personal knowledge of

the director. He also submitted that the assessee has also paid fringe

benefit tax on the above said payment. He submitted that course

curriculum of the above said programme was totally business oriented and

hence there was direct benefit accruing to the assessee. Accordingly, he

submitted that the expenditure should be fully allowed as business

expenditure.

4. On the contrary, the ld. DR submitted that the education program

has only enriched the knowledge of the concerned director and further,

there is no business nexus between the assessee's business and the

expenditure incurred. Accordingly he submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was

justified in confirming the disallowance. In this connection, the ld. DR

placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court rendered in the

case of CIT V/s Hindustan Hosiery Industries [1994] 73 TAXMAN 521

(BOM.), wherein the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has confirmed the

disallowance of expenses incurred on education of one of the partners of

the firm.

5. In the rejoinder, the ld. AR submitted that the decision rendered by

the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Hosiery Industries

(supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, since the 4 ITA. No 7826/Mum/2010

assessee therein spent money on one of the partners of the assessee firm,

where as in the instant case, the assessee company has paid fees for

admitting one of the directors in the management course and the said

director was already drawing salary from the assessee-company.

6. Having heard rival submissions, we find merit in the submissions of

the ld. DR. Though the course curriculum of the education programme was

related to the "management of the family business", yet, in our view, the

assessee failed to establish the nexus between its business and the

expenditure. The education programme undertaken by the director, in our

view, would benefit the concerned director in enriching his knowledge.

Though the Ld A.R contended that the said knowledge would ultimately

benefit the assessee's business, in our view, it was only a farfetched

reason to substantiate claim. In our view, the decision rendered by the

Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Hosiery

Industries (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the instant case.

The assessee, in the instant case, has failed to show the direct nexus

between the assessee's business and expenditure. Accordingly, we do not

find any infirmity in the decision rendered by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue.

7. The next issue relates to the disallowance of donation payment of

Rs.10,000/-. The AO disallowed the donation claimed by the assessee for

the reason that the assessee failed to furnish any material to support the

said claim. Before the ld.CIT(A) and before us also the assessee has failed 5 ITA. No 7826/Mum/2010

to furnish any proof to support the claim of payment of donation. Even

otherwise, the assessee has failed to show cause as to how the donation is

allowable as business expenditure. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in

the order of ld.CIT(A) in confirming this addition also.

8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

The above order was pronounced in the open court on 13th Feb, 2015.

घोषणा खल ु े यायालय म* +दनांकः13th Feb, 2015 को क" गई ।

sd sd

(संजय गग /SANJAY GARG) ( बी.आर.बा करन / B.R. BASKARAN) या यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai: 13th Feb,2015. व. न.स./ SRL , Sr. PS

आदे श क !त#ल$प अ%े$षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant

2. यथ / The Respondent.

3. आयकर आयु3त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- concerned

4. आयकर आयु3त / CIT concerned

5. 4वभागीय त न6ध, आयकर अपील&य अ6धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned

6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.

आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER, true copy सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील&य अ6धकरण, मुंबई /ITAT, Mumbai