2014 (3) TMI 59 - AT - Income Tax

Non-compliance of provisions of section 194-H - payment to vehicle dealiers - payment of commission versus grant of discount or rebate - The conclusion of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee made payments to the intermediaries and impliedly the sub-agents of the assessee - Held hat - the assessee was not getting any services from the vehicle dealer and there was no occasion to make any payment of commission to the vehicle dealers - if the assessee is sharing a part of commission received as remuneration from HDFC Bank in order to attract customers to improve volume of business, then the payment made by the assessee to the customers by issuing cheque in the name of vehicle dealers cannot be said to be a payment of commission. The Assessing Officer made additions on hyper technical grounds which was rightly deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) after considering the additional evidence, the remand report and explanation of the assessee - there was no occasion for the assessee to make payment of commission to the vehicle dealers who are getting business by the assessee thus, the payment made by the assessee in the form of cheques through vehicle dealers to the customers is a grant of rebate and discount - the assessee was not under any obligation to comply with the provisions of section 194H of the Act - the Assessing Officer wrongly invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) regarding addition of Rs.28,48,246 for non-compliance of section 194-H.
2. Cross Objection of the assessee against the same order.

Issue 1 - Appeal against addition for non-compliance of section 194-H:
The revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs.28,48,246 made by the Assessing Officer for non-compliance with section 194-H. The revenue contended that the assessee paid commission to car dealers under the guise of rebate or discount, which the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) did not adequately support with evidence. The revenue argued that the payment made by the assessee to the dealers was actually commission, not rebate or discount. The assessee, on the other hand, explained the process of arranging finance for customers through HDFC Bank, where the commission paid by HDFC Bank to the assessee was partly passed on to customers as rebate and discount. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner followed due procedure in admitting additional evidence and rejected the revenue's legal contention. It held that the assessee was not obligated to pay commission to the dealers, and the payment to customers was a grant of rebate and discount, not commission. Therefore, the deletion of the addition was upheld.

Issue 2 - Cross Objection of the assessee:
The assessee's Cross Objection related to the reopening of assessment under sections 147 and 148 of the Act. The counsel of the assessee indicated that if the relief granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) was upheld, they would not contest the issue of reopening the assessment. The Tribunal, having dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the addition, deemed the cross objections as not pressed. Consequently, the cross objections of the assessee were dismissed. Therefore, both the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee were ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence and legal contentions, and the final decision rendered on each issue involved in the appeal and cross objection.