2019 (3) TMI 473 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 10(37) - Assessee has received compensation on compulsory acquisition of urban agricultural land - proof of land as used for agricultural purposes - HELD THAT - The assessee filed copy of the sale deed which clearly described the impugned land to be agricultural land and used for agricultural purposes. At appellate stage, as per directions of the CIT(A), Certificate of Tehsildar was filed who has certified that at the time of acquisition of the land, the land was used for agricultural purposes. The assessee also produced Revenue record to show that land in question was used for agricultural purposes. Thus, sufficient material was produced on record to prove that at the time of acquisition of the land in question, the land was used for agricultural purposes. Thus, assessee satisfied the conditions of Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, assessee s income is exempt under the said provision - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on commission payment - allowable business expenses - A.O. accepted 80% of the commission payment and disallowed 20% out of it - HELD THAT - TDS have been deducted and commission agents have disclosed the commission income in their return of income. There is an increase in sales of the assessee in assessment year under appeal. The commission payment in the past have been accepted by the authorities below. It is also explained that on the same reason, the commission payment have been accepted in preceding A.Y. 2009-2010. These facts, therefore, clearly show that commission payment have been made to the Commission Agents who are unrelated parties and are identified. Genuineness of the commission payment is not doubted. Assessee proved that Commission Agents render services for business purpose of the assessee.- Decided in favour of assessee. Shortage in stock as found by RINL - A.O. noted that assessee is saddled with the consignment work as Agent (Handling Contractor) of RINL - proof of normal business transaction - HELD THAT - The assessee has filed copy of the ledger account of the principal to show that there was opening balance in this account for the earlier year and that while settling the bills of the assessee for payment of handling charges, the principal has deducted amount in question from the final bill because of the normal shortage. The assessee is receiving handling charges and if during handling services principal has suffered loss on account of shortage and it has recovered from the assessee as is evident from the letter of RINL, the assessee would get a lesser payment. The amount in question have not been debited to the profit and loss account and has not been claimed as deduction by the assessee. Therefore, the same could not be disallowed by the A.O. since it is a normal business transaction and shortage is recovered by the Principal and is also confirmed by the Principal, therefore, A.O. should not have doubted the explanation of the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition for not fulfilling requirements of Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Deletion of addition on account of commission payment.
3. Deletion of addition on account of shortage in stock as found by RINL.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition for Not Fulfilling Requirements of Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act:

The Revenue challenged the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ?80,29,302/- for not fulfilling the requirements of Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee received compensation for compulsory acquisition of urban agricultural land and claimed it as exempt under Section 10(37). The Assessing Officer (A.O.) noted that the assessee, being an established businessman, did not have time to undertake agricultural activities on the scattered lands, including the acquired land. The A.O. required the assessee to prove with evidence that the land was used for agricultural purposes during the two years immediately prior to the date of transfer/acquisition. The assessee explained that the land was used for agricultural purposes for self-consumption, but no details were filed. Consequently, the A.O. made the addition on account of business income.

The CIT(A) noted that the sale deed mentioned the land as agricultural and purchased for agricultural purposes. The CIT(A) directed the assessee to file information from the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee filed a certificate from the Tehsildar confirming the land's use for agricultural activities at the time of acquisition. The CIT(A) was satisfied with the evidence and deleted the addition.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that sufficient material was produced to prove the land's use for agricultural purposes at the time of acquisition, satisfying the conditions of Section 10(37). Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Commission Payment:

The Revenue challenged the deletion of ?5,14,485/- on account of commission payment. The A.O. noted that the assessee paid commission to several persons, including those residing at the same address and some being ladies. The A.O. questioned the necessity and roles of these individuals in receiving the commission. The assessee furnished details, affidavits, and I.T. returns, but the A.O. disallowed 20% of the commission payment, citing insufficient justification.

The CIT(A) noted that the commission payments were genuine, made through banking channels, and TDS was deducted. The sales of the assessee had increased, and the commission agents disclosed their income in their returns. The CIT(A) found no justification for the A.O.'s partial disallowance and deleted the addition.

The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and found that the commission payments were consistent with past practices, genuine, and for business purposes. The A.O. had accepted 80% of the commission without specific reasons for disallowing the remaining 20%. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Shortage in Stock as Found by RINL:

The Revenue challenged the deletion of ?36,02,822/- on account of stock shortage found by RINL. The A.O. noted that the assessee, as a handling contractor for RINL, was responsible for safeguarding the principal's property. RINL deducted the amount from the monthly handling bills due to the stock shortage during physical verification. The A.O. disallowed the claim as an expense under Section 37, citing the lack of FIR or complaint.

The assessee explained that the shortage was a normal business occurrence due to handling and transportation, and the amount was deducted by RINL from the final bill. The CIT(A) noted that the shortage was routine and supported by the opening balance under the same head from the previous year. Therefore, the CIT(A) deleted the addition.

The Tribunal found that the shortage was a normal business transaction, confirmed by RINL, and the amount was not debited to the profit and loss account. Therefore, the A.O. should not have disallowed the amount. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

Conclusion:

The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed on all grounds, with the Tribunal upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and justification for the claims, and the A.O.'s disallowances were not warranted.