9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2817 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of commission expenses claimed on sales - No proof of business use of the expenditure claimed - whether merely furnishing of confirmations PAN copy of return and bank statements cannot in all cases tantamount to satisfactory discharge of onus the part of the assessee company in establishing that services were actually rendered by the brokers? - HELD THAT - As relying on own case 2015 (1) TMI 98 - ITAT JAIPUR books of account are audited which has been accepted by the Assessing Officer sale and purchase have been treated genuine but doubted the commission payment and the AO made addition on surmises and conjectures. Therefore we are of the considered view that commission paid by the assessee either on sale and purchase are allowable as the expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business u/s 37 - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on account of commission expenses claimed by the assessee on sales. 2. Onus of the assessee in proving that services were actually rendered by the brokers. 3. Business use of the claimed expenditure under Section 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961. 4. Consistency with earlier judgments and the binding nature of the jurisdictional ITAT's decisions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Commission Expenses: The revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the addition made by the A.O. on account of commission expenses of Rs. 95,44,810 claimed by the assessee. The A.O. had observed that the commission expenses were claimed at the end of the financial year, the payments were made in round figures, and there was no mention of brokers on the sale bills. The A.O. concluded that the arrangement was made to siphon off profits and evade tax. However, the CIT(A) found that similar claims had been allowed in previous assessment years (2007-08 to 2009-10) by the ITAT, and the facts of the current year were identical. The CIT(A) relied on the binding nature of the jurisdictional ITAT's decisions and allowed the commission expenses. 2. Onus of the Assessee in Proving Services Rendered by Brokers: The A.O. contended that merely furnishing confirmations, PAN, copy of return, and bank statements did not satisfactorily discharge the onus of proving that services were rendered by the brokers. The A.O. noted the absence of brokers' names on sale bills and the lack of correspondence between the assessee and brokers. The CIT(A), however, found that the assessee had provided agreements on stamp paper, confirmations, and other documents, and noted that the ITAT had allowed similar claims in previous years despite the absence of written agreements. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient evidence of services rendered by the brokers. 3. Business Use of the Claimed Expenditure Under Section 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961: The A.O. argued that the business use of the expenditure was not proved, and thus, the expenditure was not allowable under Section 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The CIT(A) disagreed, noting that the ITAT had allowed similar claims in earlier years and that the assessee had executed agreements with brokers and deducted TDS on the payments. The CIT(A) found that the commission expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and allowed the deduction under Section 37(1). 4. Consistency with Earlier Judgments and Binding Nature of Jurisdictional ITAT's Decisions: The CIT(A) emphasized the binding nature of the jurisdictional ITAT's decisions, which had allowed similar claims in the assessee's own case in earlier years. The CIT(A) cited several case laws supporting the principle that consistent judicial decisions in similar circumstances should be followed. The CIT(A) concluded that the facts of the current assessment year were identical to those of earlier years, and thus, the commission expenses should be allowed. Conclusion: The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The ITAT found that the facts of the case were identical to earlier years, where similar claims had been allowed. The ITAT noted that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including agreements, confirmations, and TDS deductions, to substantiate the commission expenses. The ITAT concluded that the commission expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and allowed the deduction under Section 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open court on 30/10/2015.
|
