2010 (1) TMI 889 - AT - Income Tax

assessee principal or agent only - AO held that the assessee company is an independent company and not an agent - Held that - assessee companies in these cases are mere agents of the UK company and the assessing officer had no evidence whatsoever to hold otherwise and the decisions of the assessing officer were based merely on surmises and conjectures, order of the first appellate authority upheld and dismiss this ground of the revenue. Import agency commission - assessee company is only an agent and the assessee accounted its agency income as per the agency agreement with IALCL, UK at the rate of 2.5 of basic import freight and 5% of basic import freight. order of the CIT(Appeals) upheld, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the assessee is the principal or an agent only.
2. Relief to additions of import agency commission.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(Appeals) for the assessment year 2005-06. The primary issue was whether the assessee is the principal or merely an agent. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances of the case and concluded that the assessee is an agent in the Shipping Company. The AO had considered the assessee as an independent company, leading to certain adhoc disallowances. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years and upheld the findings that the assessee is a mere agent of the UK company. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds as the assessing officer lacked evidence to hold otherwise, and decisions were based on surmises and conjectures.

2. The second issue pertained to relief on additions of import agency commission. The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee on this issue as well. It was noted that the assessee company accounted its agency income as per the agency agreement with IALCL, UK. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals) on this ground as well, given the earlier finding that the assessee is only an agent. Consequently, both grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed, and the appeal of the Revenue was ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the findings that the assessee is an agent and not a principal, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal also ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the relief on additions of import agency commission. The judgment was pronounced on January 19, 2010, by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT, Mumbai.