2014 (1) TMI 346 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of commission - Held that - The Court fails to understand why Mr Vinod has not even filed his IT returns if huge amounts of commission was received, as claimed by the assessee company - The stand of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that these amounts were paid to the employees of Beverages Corporation and retail outlet employees and in the remand report when the statement of Mr. Vinod came to be recorded it was the commission paid to him during those years - The very role played by Mr. Vinod in the affairs of the company and also the amount said to have been paid by him to the Managing Director, all looks very suspicious - The authorities were justified in rejecting the stand of the assessee - The amounts claimed were paid as commission but to whom paid becomes a very doubtful issue - The Assessing Officer and Tribunal was justified in disallowing the claims made by the assessee Decided against assessee.

Issues:
The judgment involves the disallowance of claimed expenses under the heads Commission and Incentive by the assessing officer for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2005-06, specifically related to the payment made to Mr. Vinod by the appellant-assessee company.

Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Commission to Mr. Vinod:
The central issue in this case pertains to the disallowance of expenses claimed by the appellant-assessee company under the heads Commission and Incentive for the mentioned assessment years. The assessing officer initially rejected the claim, leading to an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) where only 50% of the claims were allowed. Subsequently, both the Revenue and the assessee approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the details in the remand report, rejected the case of the assessee and upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer, thereby confirming the disallowance claimed by the assessee.

2. Suspicious Nature of Transactions:
The judgment highlights the suspicious nature of the transactions involving Mr. Vinod. The assessee company claimed that the amounts under the head Commission and Incentives were paid to employees of Beverages Corporation and retail outlets for sales promotion. However, discrepancies arose as Mr. Vinod's involvement was questioned, especially considering the absence of his income tax returns despite allegedly receiving substantial commissions. The court raised concerns about the joint account opened in the name of the assessee company and Mr. Vinod, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the claimed transactions.

3. Justification for Disallowance:
The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal were justified in disallowing the claims made by the assessee due to the lack of clarity and suspicious circumstances surrounding the payments to Mr. Vinod. The failure of Mr. Vinod to file income tax returns despite purportedly receiving significant commissions, coupled with uncertainties regarding the actual recipients of the payments, led the authorities to reject the stand of the assessee. The judgment concludes that the disallowance of the claimed expenses was warranted based on the dubious nature of the transactions and the lack of concrete evidence supporting the company's assertions.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Kerala High Court revolves around the disallowance of expenses claimed by the appellant-assessee company under the heads Commission and Incentive for the specified assessment years, primarily concerning the payments made to Mr. Vinod. The court found the transactions suspicious, especially regarding Mr. Vinod's involvement and the lack of clarity on the actual beneficiaries of the alleged commissions. Consequently, the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal were deemed justified in rejecting the claims made by the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeals at the admission stage.

← Previous Next →