2021 (11) TMI 1001 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowing the payment of commission paid by the assessee to three persons - HELD THAT - These are undisputed fact that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of sprinklers which used in the agriculture and had maintained his targets from the previous years and had made payments to the respective persons on account of commission payment through account payee cheques and all those accounts are audited and required TDS had also been deducted. Since, engaging of these persons for enhancing of sales is specifically within the notice and knowledge of the assessee and the assessee has discharged his burden of proving the existence of circumstances for engaging the persons for enhancing the sales and had making payment towards commission @ 1.5% to the respective persons and apart from this nothing has been brought on record by the A.O. to controvert the said facts placed on record by the assessee alongwith supportive documents. Therefore, we see no reasons to disbelieve the specific averments and supportive documents made by the assessee to this effect. Therefore, we direct to delete the addition made qua this issue. Trading addition - HELD THAT - We noticed that the assessee's proprietorship firm M/s. Jamna Industries is manufacturing of Sprinkler System and its Spare Parts and the assessee has maintained complete books of account including stock register. All the sales, purchases and expenses are fully vouched and verifiable. There is no change in the method of accounting as compared to preceding years. The books of account are duly audited. All the books of account and record of the unit were produced before the A.O.. All the details of purchases were furnished before the lower authorities and maintained stock register, production record and finished stock register of the unit. The assessee also filed complete stock chart of Raw Material, Finished Goods showing opening stock, purchase, manufacturing, sales and closing stock alongwith audit balance sheet before the Revenue authorities. Since the A.O. checked the books of account and also checked the manufacturing records and no any defect was pointed out then in that eventuality, sustaining of addition on account of trading addition is no legs to stand, therefore, we direct to delete this addition.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of commission payments.
2. Trading addition due to non-maintenance of manufacturing register.
3. Orders based on assumptions and presumptions.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Commission Payments:
The first issue pertains to the addition of ?10,58,382/- made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) and sustained by the CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of commission payments to three individuals. The assessee argued that the commission was paid to enhance sales after the closure of sales depots in Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh. The payments were made to experienced individuals to maintain sales targets, with TDS duly deducted. The assessee provided evidence including ITR copies and computation of income for the recipients. The Tribunal noted that commission payments are a normal business practice and cited the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Genesis Commet P. Ltd., which upheld commission payments as allowable business expenditure when the assessee had produced all possible material. The Tribunal found the assessee's evidence credible and directed the deletion of the addition.

2. Trading Addition Due to Non-Maintenance of Manufacturing Register:
The second issue involved a trading addition of ?1,00,000/- made by the A.O. due to the non-maintenance of a manufacturing register, which the CIT(A) reduced to ?50,000/-. The assessee contended that complete books of account, including a stock register, were maintained and audited, with no defects pointed out by the A.O. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's books were fully vouched and verifiable, and no discrepancies were noted by the A.O. during the assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the ?50,000/- addition.

3. Orders Based on Assumptions and Presumptions:
The assessee argued that the lower authorities erred in passing orders based on assumptions and presumptions. The Tribunal's detailed examination of the evidence and supportive documents provided by the assessee led to the conclusion that the A.O.'s and CIT(A)'s decisions were not substantiated by concrete evidence, thereby addressing the assessee's concerns about assumptions and presumptions.

4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The assessee claimed that the lower authorities' orders violated principles of natural justice, as the appellant was not confronted with the material used against them and was not given an opportunity for rebuttal. The Tribunal's decision to delete the additions indicates that it found merit in the assessee's argument regarding the lack of fair opportunity to contest the evidence used by the A.O.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the deletion of the additions related to commission payments and trading addition. The decision emphasized adherence to normal business practices, proper maintenance of accounts, and the necessity of providing a fair opportunity to the assessee, thereby upholding the principles of natural justice.