2012 (2) TMI 349 - HC - Income Tax

Finding of fact - dis-allowance of payment to Commission agents in respect of sales made to the State Road/Municipal Transport Corporation/Undertakings Tribunal deleted the dis-allowance Revenue contended that commission payment in fact represented illegal gratification paid to some of the officers of the SRTC/Municipal/ Undertakings - Held that - The conclusion reached by the tribunal is a finding of fact. Tribunal has accepted and agreed that evidence exists to show and establish nature of services actually rendered by various agents at different places throughout India. Further w.r.t. to contention of gratification it is held that it is based on surmises, conjectures or suspicions and is not rationally possible Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal by Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 1998-99, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2004-05.
2. Disallowance of commission payment to agents for supplies made to State Road/Municipal Transport Corporation/Undertakings.
3. Examination of evidence regarding commission payments and nature of services rendered by agents.
4. Allegation of illegal gratification in commission payments.
5. Allowability of commission expenses under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act pertain to various assessment years. The Tribunal disposed of these appeals by a common order due to the identical issue raised.

2. In the assessment year 1998-99, a distinguishing factor was noted where the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to examine the payment of commission to agents for supplies made to State Road/Municipal Transport Corporation/Undertakings.

3. The Revenue relied on assessment orders and communications from State Road/Municipal Transport Corporation/Undertakings to contest the commission payments. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed additional evidence under Rule 46A, highlighting commission expenses and discounts claimed by the assessee.

4. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and accepted the cross-appeal, restricting the commission claim to 4.5%. The Tribunal examined detailed agreements between the assessee and agents, emphasizing the obligations and duties of the agents.

5. The issue of illegal gratification in commission payments was raised but lacked direct evidence. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the contention and concluded that the commission payments were for legitimate services rendered by recognized agents.

6. The Tribunal's decision was based on a factual analysis of the evidence presented. It was observed that the commission payments were made through proper channels to genuine agents providing various services, and the payments were not in violation of any law or public policy.

7. The Tribunal's findings were upheld as they were based on substantial evidence and logical reasoning. The conclusion that the commission expenses were allowable under Section 37 of the Act was supported by the nature of services rendered by the agents, as evidenced in the agreements and interactions with State Road/Municipal Transport Corporation/Undertakings.