2011 (5) TMI 26 - HC - Income Tax

Payment of Commission / discount - deduction - Held that the ITAT committed an error of law in allowing the aforesaid payments despite onus of proving being on the assessee and no evidence having been produced by the assessee to prove those payments, and thereby misplacing the burden of proof on the Revenue - Accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of commission payment for assessment year 1995-96.
2. Disallowance of commission payment for assessment year 1996-97.
3. Disallowance of commission payment for assessment year 1997-98.
4. Substantial questions of law admitted for appeal.

Issue 1 - For the assessment year 1995-96, the respondent claimed commission payment as deduction under 'commission/discount' but failed to provide details to the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the disallowance of a portion of the claimed amount, citing lack of evidence. However, based on past record and nature of the commission, certain portions were allowed. The High Court criticized the decision, stating that without concrete evidence, the allowance was unjustified.

Issue 2 - In the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee again failed to furnish details of the claimed commission payment, resulting in disallowance by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed a partial disallowance, which was upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to the lack of evidence to challenge the Commissioner's findings.

Issue 3 - For the assessment year 1997-98, the assessee claimed a substantial amount under 'commission/discount' but failed to provide sufficient details. The Assessing Officer disallowed the balance amount after a partial offer for tax by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reduced the addition based on past records and details provided. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to lack of material to dispute the Commissioner's decision.

Issue 4 - The appeals by the Revenue were admitted based on substantial questions of law regarding the burden of proof and the alleged errors in the ITAT's decision. The High Court found that the ITAT erred in allowing the payments without proper evidence and misplaced the burden of proof on the Revenue, leading to a ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Overall, the High Court criticized the decisions of the lower authorities for allowing commission payments without concrete evidence, emphasizing the importance of the assessee proving the claimed payments and not shifting the burden of proof to the Revenue. The judgments were overturned in favor of the Revenue due to the lack of substantiating evidence provided by the assessee.