2014 (4) TMI 698 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of commission on sales Manufacturing and trading of safety gloves and industrial safety products Held that - The assessee had paid similar commission to ACL which has been accepted by the Department under the scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3) - The nature of transaction on the domestic sales by the assessee through ACL is on account of ordinary course of business and it was a business expediency that the assessee had decided to make the sales in the domestic market through ACL - In the cases where sale has been made to ACL, then it has been made on pre-determined price and whatever further sales has been made by the ACL is not the concern of the assessee. It is prerogative of the businessman to conduct the business in the manner it suits its business expediency and necessity - the business expediency cannot be doubted looking to the overall transaction undertaken by the assessee through ACL - the genuineness of the payment is also corroborated by the fact that the assessee has deducted TDS on such a commission and has also deposited in the Government treasury - This leads to some credence about the genuineness of the commission of payment and its claim for deduction u/s 37(1) - the payment of commission to ACL is genuine business expenditure which has been paid on account of business and commercial expediency thus, the claim is duly allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to disallowance of commission on sales under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2006-07.

Analysis:
The assessee, engaged in manufacturing of hand gloves and safety products, claimed commission expenditure on local sales. The Assessing Officer disallowed it due to lack of evidence on commission paid to a related party, Accent Industries Ltd. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance citing absence of agreement or proof of services rendered. The assessee argued that commission was paid for marketing services by ACL in domestic markets as a business necessity. The Tribunal noted the genuine nature of transactions and upheld the claim, emphasizing business expediency and necessity. The Tribunal highlighted the past acceptance of similar commission payments by the Department, confirming the genuineness of the expenditure.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee, a 100% Export Oriented Unit, sold products in the domestic market through ACL based on pre-determined prices. The commission was paid when buyers requested manufacturer's bills, with the difference treated as commission. The Tribunal found no dispute on major sales to ACL, indicating the genuineness of transactions with Bajaj Auto Industries Ltd. and ASB International Ltd. through ACL. The absence of an agreement did not render the transactions non-genuine, as the commission was based on price differences. The Tribunal emphasized the commercial expediency and business necessity behind the commission payments, allowing the claim under section 37(1) as genuine business expenditure.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and allowed the assessee's appeal, recognizing the commission payment to ACL as a genuine business expenditure incurred for commercial expediency and necessity. The Tribunal highlighted the consistent nature of transactions and the genuineness of the expenditure, leading to the allowance of the claim under section 37(1).