2019 (8) TMI 1271 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of commission - addition on the ground that such commission has been claimed by more than 1 broker for obtaining orders from the same company - notice u/s. 133(6) to which the parties confirmed that they have received commission - AO noted from the records that the assessee had not paid any such commission in the immediately preceding assessment year whereas assessee has paid substantial commission during this year to various parties - HELD THAT - It is the settled proposition of law that for claiming any expenditure as an allowable deduction the onus is always on the assessee to substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. However, in the instant case the Assessing Officer had made certain observations which according to him could not be explained satisfactorily by assessee. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the allowability of such commission and decide the issue as per fact and law. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to addition of commission by Assessing Officer

Analysis:
The appeal was against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of commission made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee paid substantial commission to various parties during the year, leading to the addition of ?21,35,426. The parties confirmed receiving the commission, but discrepancies arose during the assessment. The Assessing Officer found that commission was claimed by multiple brokers for the same sales, on amounts higher than actual sales, and without actual payment in some cases.

The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the appellant failed to justify the business exigency of the commission paid. The appellant could not establish a nexus between the commission payment and the business. The CIT(A) observed inconsistencies in commission claims, lack of justification for payment, and discrepancies in sales amounts. The appellant's arguments were deemed unsatisfactory, leading to the sustained addition of ?21,35,426.

In the Tribunal, the appellant challenged the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the commission was paid through cheques with TDS deductions, and recipients confirmed receiving it. The appellant claimed that the CIT(A) did not consider their submissions properly and that assessments of commission recipients were completed under section 143(3). The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer did not conduct a meaningful inquiry before making the addition.

The Tribunal considered the arguments of both parties and reviewed the AO and CIT(A) orders. It noted discrepancies in commission claims, lack of payment in the preceding year, and denials of third-party involvement. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to substantiate the commission's allowability satisfactorily. To ensure justice, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further substantiation. Consequently, the appellant's grounds were allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal directed a reevaluation of the commission payment issue, emphasizing the onus on the assessee to substantiate deductions satisfactorily. The decision highlighted the need for proper justification and evidence to support expense claims, ultimately aiming for a fair and just resolution.