2016 (7) TMI 537 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of commission payment to agents - assessee could not produce any evidence for the services rendered by the said three persons/agents - Held that - The burden heavily lies on the assessee to establish that the said persons/agents have introduced clients/customers to the assessee company. Admittedly, in this case, the assessee fails to establish the names of the clients/customers, who were introduced by the agents to the assessee. In this case, there is no such evidence placed before the Assessing Officer or ld. CIT(A) or even before us. Therefore, in the absence of such evidences, we are unable to agree with the submission of the assessee even though the assessee made the commission payment by way of cheques and deducted the TDS and tax paid to the Government by the recipients is not a conclusive evidence to come to the conclusion that the persons have rendered the services for improvement of business of the assessee. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence on the services rendered by the above said persons to the assessee company, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Late filing of appeal, Condonation of delay, Disallowance of commission payment made by the assessee to its agents, Business expenditure, Evidence of services rendered by agents, Burden of proof.

Late Filing of Appeal and Condonation of Delay:
The appeal was filed late by 132 days, and the assessee sought condonation of the delay citing medical reasons. The Managing Director was under medical treatment for paralysis, leading to the delay. The Tribunal, after perusing the records and medical certificate, found sufficient cause for the delay. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for hearing and adjudication.

Disallowance of Commission Payment:
The assessee, a private limited company engaged in bullion trading and jewelry manufacturing, claimed commission payments as business expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure of &8377;26,06,098, stating it was not wholly and exclusively expended for the assessee's business. The CIT(A) partly confirmed the disallowance, emphasizing the lack of evidence regarding services rendered by the recipients of the commission payments. The Tribunal noted that the burden lay on the assessee to establish the introduction of clients by the agents. Despite payments made by cheque with TDS deductions, the absence of evidence on services rendered led to the confirmation of the disallowance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the appeal.

Evidence of Services Rendered by Agents:
The CIT(A) highlighted specific instances where commission payments lacked evidence of services rendered. For example, payments to individuals like Shri R. Chandrasekar, Smt. R. Lakshmi, and Smt. Praveena lacked proof of introducing clients for commission. The lack of documentation on the nature of services provided by these individuals led to the disallowance of the commission payments. The Tribunal agreed that without evidence of services rendered, the disallowance was justified, emphasizing the importance of substantiating the services provided by commission recipients.

Burden of Proof:
The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof regarding the services rendered by agents rested on the assessee. Despite making payments through legitimate channels and deducting TDS, the failure to provide concrete evidence of client introductions by the agents resulted in the disallowance of commission payments. The Tribunal affirmed that mere payment methods and tax deductions were insufficient to establish the agents' contribution to the assessee's business. Consequently, the absence of evidence led to the dismissal of the appeal, reinforcing the importance of substantiating services rendered by commission recipients to claim business expenditure.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of late filing of appeal, condonation of delay, disallowance of commission payments, evidence of services rendered by agents, and the burden of proof placed on the assessee. The Tribunal's decision underscores the significance of providing concrete evidence to support business expenditure claims, especially concerning commission payments and services rendered by third parties.