2018 (6) TMI 1811 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of commission of the sales turnover - CIT-A directed to work out it @ 0.1% as against 2% made by AO - HELD THAT - The assessee is an employee of one Asia Group. There is an uncontroverted finding in the impugned order that the amount of sale and purchases are exactly same and no profit or loss resulted from such purchase/sale. The assessee has admitted that the transaction of sale and purchases were within the group companies only and were made at the instance of the employer to increase the turnover of the group company. It was also further admitted that there was no movement of goods and the transactions were shown of doing circular trading within the group merely to increase the turnover. CIT (Appeal) has mentioned the case of Smt. Kalawati Negi, who was also an employee of the same group and showed similar transaction to jack up the turnover, wherein, the Ld. Assessing Officer itself made the addition on such account @ 0.1%. No contrary decision was brought to our notice. Thus, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), resultantly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in estimating commission rate by the Assessing Officer.
2. Allegation of circular trading by the Assessing Officer.
3. Comparison with a similar case involving commission estimation.
4. Lack of evidence for presumption of commission income.
5. Nature of transactions and turnover manipulation.
6. Decision based on factual findings and analysis.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the estimation of commission by the Assessing Officer at 2% of sales turnover, resulting in a significant addition to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. First Appellate Authority directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the commission at a lower rate of 0.1%, leading to a substantial relief for the assessee. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Appellate Tribunal.

2. The Revenue contended that the assessee was engaged in circular trading, questioning the basis on which the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) reduced the commission rate. However, the counsel for the assessee defended the decision by highlighting factual findings and evidence presented during the proceedings. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence supporting the presumption of commission income due to accommodation entries and emphasized the identical nature of sale and purchase transactions within the group companies.

3. Upon analysis of the facts and submissions, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's addition of commission was based on a presumption without concrete evidence. The assessee's involvement in circular trading within the group, solely to boost turnover without actual movement of goods, was acknowledged. Reference to a similar case involving commission estimation at 0.1% further supported the decision to uphold the lower commission rate for the present assessee.

4. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of factual findings and analysis in reaching a decision. It highlighted the lack of contradictory evidence or decisions brought forth by the Revenue, affirming the validity of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)'s conclusion. The dismissal of the Revenue's appeal was based on the absence of substantial grounds to challenge the lower commission rate estimation.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, upholding the decision of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to reduce the estimated commission rate for the assessee. The judgment was pronounced after a thorough consideration of the facts, submissions, and relevant legal precedents, ensuring a fair and reasoned outcome in the matter.