ITA No.9 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.9 of 2010 Date of Decision:- March 9, 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax-II Chandigarh ...Appellant VERSUS M/s Budhu Slug Technologies (P) Ltd. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms.Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** M.M.KUMAR, J. Through this appeal filed under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity the 'Act'), the Revenue has challenged order dated 23.6.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-B, Chandigarh (for brevity 'Tribunal') in ITA No.409/Chandi/2009, in respect of assessment year 2005-06. It is admitted position that the Tribunal while confirming the view taken by the CIT(A) has come to the conclusion that additions made by the Assessing Officer were not based on any concrete evidence. The Assessing Officer had inferred the conclusion by comparing the expenditure in respect of the assessment year in question with the expenditure incurred during the previous assessment year 2004-05. The CIT(A) sought remand report from the Assessing Officer, wherein it was claimed that the profit has been inflated by showing meagre expenses. ITA No.9 of 2010 -2- The Tribunal agreed with the view taken by the CIT(A) that non-drawing salary by the CEO was the prerogative of the assessee-company because the business man is entitled to arrange the affairs of his business in such a way, which is best suitable to its project. The assessee-company booked expenditure on the basis of accounting principles for the first years and as per the requirement of the project for the next year. Expressing agreement with CIT(A), the Tribunal has held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in estimating the expenditure in the absence of any material on record and that the assessee could not have been directed to manage its affairs in a particular manner. The Tribunal has, however, held that even if all the expenses are claimed, still there is no loss to the Revenue. The aforesaid findings are necessarily based on evidence and would not give rise to any question of law much less a substantive question of law. We are of the view that the appeal lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE March 9, 2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Vt JUDGE