2012 (5) TMI 713 - AT - Income Tax

Allowance of commission expenses - Held that - There was no agreement between the assessee and the commission agents and there was no document on the basis of which it could be said that the commission was due and payable. As it has been already pointed out, even the agreements do not bind the Assessing Officer from enquiring into deductibility of commission. In this case there are no agreements and also there was no evidence of any correspondence or any personal meetings between the assessee and the commission agents to suggest that there was any relationship on the basis of which the commission agents procured customers for the assessee for which they were entitled to receive commission. The understanding between the parties was an oral understanding and it was doubtful that such an oral understanding could have been arrived at without any longstanding relationship having been established between the assessee and the commission agents involving such huge amounts of money over a period of time. Further, the assessee is unable to furnish the details of customers introduced by each agent and also the exact working of commission payment made to each of the agents. Mere payment of commission through account payee cheque after deduction of TDS does not absolve the assessee from discharging its burden with regard to proving business purpose of the payments. In the absence of any credible evidence for making such payments, we are inclined to disallow the same.

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of commission payments.
2. Documentary evidence for commission payments.
3. Genuineness of services rendered by commission agents.
4. Admissibility of commission payments under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Commission Payments:
The assessee claimed commission payments to various parties for services related to screening, grading, processing, and trading of minerals. The Assessing Officer (AO) required the assessee to provide details of services rendered, clients arranged by the agents, copies of agreements, correspondence, and the basis for commission payments. The assessee failed to provide written agreements, specific client lists, tonnage details of sales, or any documentary evidence supporting the services rendered by the agents. The AO inferred that the commission payments were not justified as there was no substantial evidence proving the business purpose of these payments.

2. Documentary Evidence for Commission Payments:
The AO noted that there were no written agreements or correspondence between the assessee and the commission agents. Statements recorded from the agents did not provide definitive lists of customers, quantities of sales, or workings of commission. The agents claimed they did not know any customers and only ensured the quality of ore loaded into trucks. The AO concluded that the payments were not substantiated with credible evidence and were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.

3. Genuineness of Services Rendered by Commission Agents:
The assessee argued that the nature of the iron ore business required the assistance of commission agents and that payments were made through account payee cheques with TDS deducted. However, the AO found inconsistencies in the statements of the agents and noted that the agents did not provide similar services to any other parties. The AO concluded that the agents did not render any genuine services to the assessee, and the claim of commission payments was not reliable.

4. Admissibility of Commission Payments under Section 37:
The AO referred to the Supreme Court decision in Lachminarayan Madan Lal Vs. CIT, which held that even if there is an agreement for commission payments, the AO is not bound to allow the deduction if the payments are not substantiated. The AO concluded that the commission payments were not deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act as the assessee failed to prove that the payments were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed as the assessee failed to provide credible evidence for the commission payments. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision, stating that the assessee did not discharge the burden of proof required to justify the commission payments. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents to support its decision, emphasizing the need for documentary evidence and the genuineness of services rendered for claiming deductions under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.

← Previous Next →