2007 (5) TMI 617 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance in respect of Commission - commercial expediency - Payments on account of commission to any person for doing the liaison work - details of services rendered not established - notice sent by the Assessing Officer remained unserved - HELD THAT - From the record it is apparent that the assessee was required by the Income-tax Authorities to file the requisite particulars and produce the concerned person for verification/examination. The assessee did not submit any confirmation from the DOT and MTNL because DOT and MTNL were not directly involved. With regard to the names and addresses of the persons with whom the assessee interacted, it was stated by the assessee that there has been a lot of changes in the structure of M/s. SFL Industries Ltd. and details and whereabouts of the employees of M/s. SFL Industries were not available with the assessee. The assessee even did not file the copy of relevant bank account of M/s. SFL. The assessee also failed to explain as to what was the nature of the services provided by M/s. SFL, and no correspondence in this regard has been produced by the assessee in spite of specific opportunities granted. No fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal. Thus, the order of the Tribunal does not give rise to a question of law, much less a substantial question of law, to fall within the limited purview of section 260A of the Act, which is confined to entertaining only such appeals against the order which involves a substantial question of law. There are concurrent findings of the facts in the present case given by the three statutory authorities and in view of the fact that assessee has failed to provide the requisite information to the Assessing Officer, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the present appeals filed by the assessee are, hereby, dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of commission payment for procurement services by the assessee for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals by the assessee challenging the disallowance of commission payment claimed for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing PCB boards for Telecom purposes, claimed to have paid commissions to M/s. SLF Industries Ltd. for procuring orders from DOT and MTNL. The Assessing Officer requested details of the commission paid, names and addresses of recipients, and nature of services rendered. However, the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence despite multiple opportunities. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, leading to appeals and subsequent dismissals by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not substantiate the nature of services provided by M/s. SLF Industries Ltd. for the substantial commission claimed. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the services rendered, emphasizing the need for proof of the actual liaisoning work done. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the claimed services and the actual activities of M/s. SLF Industries Ltd., raising doubts about the legitimacy of the commission payments. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to establish the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for business purposes, justifying the disallowance by the revenue authorities.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the assessee's failure to provide essential information and evidence to substantiate the commission payments. The Court noted the absence of proof regarding the services rendered, the changing structure of M/s. SLF Industries Ltd., and the lack of correspondence or documentation supporting the claimed services. With no substantial question of law arising and consistent findings by the statutory authorities, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the disallowance of the commission payments for the assessment years in question.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of substantiating business expenses with concrete evidence and documentation. The case serves as a reminder for taxpayers to maintain thorough records and provide comprehensive details to support claims, especially when facing scrutiny by tax authorities.