2007 (12) TMI 25 - HC - Income Tax

Affidavit by assessee showed the nature of services rendered, terms of agreement & events in which commission arise no contrary evidence by dept. tribunal is not justified in disallowing commission mere on basis of suspicion & non-reading of affidavit Commission allowable as deduction

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding disallowance of commission paid to M/s. Laxmi Stone Pvt. Ltd.
Controversy over disallowance of commission paid in relevant assessment years.
Analysis of evidence and findings by Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax.
Evidence presented by the assessee before the Tribunal.
Contentions of both parties regarding the legitimacy of commission payment.
Application of legal principles and precedents in determining the validity of the disallowance.
Judgment in favor of the assessee and modification of impugned orders.

The judgment in question pertains to three appeals challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the disallowance of a commission paid to M/s. Laxmi Stone Pvt. Ltd. The controversy revolves around the disallowance of the commission paid by the assessee to the company in the relevant assessment years. The Assessing Officer disallowed the commission, citing reasons such as lack of a written agreement, insufficient evidence of services rendered, and suspicion of profit diversion. The Commissioner of Income-tax upheld this disallowance based on various circumstances, including the company being a family concern and the suspicious nature of the commission payment entry in the company's journal.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of specific evidence provided by the assessee regarding the nature of services rendered by the company. However, the assessee later presented substantial evidence before the Tribunal, including affidavits from individuals who purchased plants from them, attesting to the quality and performance of the machines. The Tribunal, despite acknowledging certain facts favoring the assessee, confirmed the disallowance of the commission payment.

In analyzing the case, the court referred to legal precedents emphasizing that expenditures should not be disallowed based solely on suspicion. The court noted that the assessee and the company were not sister concerns, and the absence of a written agreement did not invalidate the commission payment. Crucially, the commission amount was reflected in the company's books and had been assessed, indicating its legitimacy. The court criticized the Tribunal for not considering the evidence presented by the assessee and relying heavily on suspicion rather than tangible evidence.

Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, overturning the disallowance of the commission payment. The court found that the authorities below had erred in disallowing the amount based on suspicion rather than the specific evidence provided by the assessee regarding the nature of services rendered by the company. The judgment modified the impugned orders, setting aside the disallowance and allowing the appeals in favor of the assessee.