Enkay (India) Rubber Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax
2003 Latest Caselaw 341 Del

JUDGMENT

1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case, expenditure of Rs. 1,00,917 and Rs. 52,940 incurred on the education of Sh. Pankaj Jain and Sh. Manish Jain was allowable as business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and he further submitted that the orders of the Appellate Tribunal and the Assessing Officer have omitted to consider the relevant facts and have taken into consideration irrelevant material. The matter pertains to the assessment year 1993-94. The matter pertaining to the year 1992-93 has been dealt with by us and we have disposed of the same vide an order today itself in I.T.A. No. 93 of 2003. The Tribunal has disposed of both the matters by a common judgment. In respect of the assessment year 1992-93, we have found that no question of law arises.

2. In the instant case, learned counsel pointed out that the persons have joined the company and, therefore, the assessed ought to have been granted the benefit. Our attention is also drawn to the order made by the Assessing Officer at annexure A-3. It is pointed out as under :

"Sh. Manish Jain claimed to be serving with effect from August, 1995, on a salary of Rs. 3,000 per month plus other perquisites as per the rules."

3. It is also pointed out that :

"Sh. Pankaj Jain is stated to have joined the company with effect from July, 1994, on a salary of Rs. 3,100 per month."

4. It is required to be noted that the court is concerned with the assessment year 1993-94, i.e., year ending on March 31, 1993. Therefore, even if the claim is accepted, they did not join during the year ending March 31, 1993, and joined subsequently. It is clear that the benefits were extended to the children of the directors in successive years as found by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Tribunal. Thus, on appreciation of facts, the decision has been rendered. No question of law arises and we find that there is no substance in the appeal. Learned counsel submitted that it is difficult to distinguish what were the relevant facts taken into consideration by the Tribunal from wholly irrelevant facts. In the opinion of the court during the relevant year, the amount was spent not for the persons working in the company or as per any scheme prepared by the company, but for the outsiders and who were close relatives of the directors. We find no substance in the appeal and, therefore, the appeal stands dismissed.