2008 (11) TMI 11 - HC - Income Tax

Whether the expenses claimed towards payment of commission, as well as, service charges to CIL was reasonable having regard to the provisions of Section 40A - impugned issue is a pure question of fact SC also in its various decisions have held that whether or not an expenditure is unreasonable and hence, merits disallowance u/s 40A, is essentially a question of fact no perversity in the findings of tribunal deciding the issue in favour of assessee - no substantial question of law

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against a common judgment passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding assessment year 1996-97. Dispute over the allowance of commission and service charges paid to a consignment agent.

Analysis:
The assessee filed a return of income declaring Rs 18,97,440, which was picked up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of the commission and service charges paid to the consignment agent, CIL, under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The disallowed commission was quantified at Rs 21,95,347, and service charges of Rs 8,21,621 were added back to the income. An assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act.

The CIT(A) allowed the entire commission expenditure but restricted the allowable service charges to 3%. The CIT(A) reasoned that CIL genuinely carried out sales and marketing activities, leading to an increase in turnover. The CIT(A) also noted that CIL incurred various expenses related to sales promotions and development. The Tribunal disposed of both appeals, allowing the entire expenditure on commission and service charges. It found that the services rendered by CIL had a positive impact on the assessee's sales, justifying the payments made.

The High Court held that the reasonableness of expenses claimed by the assessee towards commission and service charges to CIL was a question of fact. Referring to previous judgments, the court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The court found no perversity in the findings of the lower authorities and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow the entire expenditure on commission and service charges paid to the consignment agent, CIL. The court emphasized that the nature and scope of services provided by CIL were crucial in determining the reasonableness of the payments made by the assessee.