IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No.45 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 30.7.2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad -----Appellant Vs. M/s Porrits & Spencers (Asia) Limited, Faridabad. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Standing Counsel for the revenue. Mr. Santosh Aggarwal and Mr. A.C.Jain, Advocates for the respondent-assessee. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. Notice was issued on condonation of delay. 2. Delay condoned. Heard on merits. 4. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) against the order dated 6.7.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘B’ New Delhi in ITA No.5230/(DEL)/2004 for the assessment year ITA No.45 of 2009 (O&M) 2001-02, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “Whether the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) vide which the disallowance of Rs.4,35,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission paid to Managing Director and the Executives, was deleted? ii) Whether the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) in which the disallowance of Rs.11,17,288/- made by the Assessing Officer being non verifiable and personal in nature out of staff welfare expenses, was deleted?” 5. The Assessing Officer disallowed deduction claimed on account of commission paid to Managing Director and Executives and expenditure out of staff welfare which was not verifiable and was personal in nature. On appeal, the claim of the assessee was upheld by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal followed its earlier order in the case of the assessee. 2 ITA No.45 of 2009 (O&M) 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee points out that ITA No.540 of 2006 raising an identical issue in the case of the assessee has been dismissed on 5.3.2009. He further points out that with regard to Question No.(ii), ITA No.362 of 2005 was filed by the revenue in the earlier assessment year but no such question was raised. Even otherwise, the said question cannot be held to be substantial question of law in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shahzada Nand & Sons v. CIT, (1977) 108 ITR 358, laying down that the concept of business expediency had to be considered in the context of current socio economic thinking that the business is product of combined efforts of the employer and employees and liberal approach has to be adopted to allow expenses for welfare of employees. 9. In view of above, we are unable to hold that the questions proposed are substantial questions of law. 10. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge July 30, 2009 (Daya Chaudhary) ‘gs’ Judge 3