1994 (6) TMI 36 - AT - Income Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition of Rs. 1,47,203 as commission paid to various agents.
2. Trading addition of Rs. 1,72,218 due to a drop in the G.P. rate.
3. Addition of Rs. 39,500 on account of squared-up cash credits.
4. Addition of Rs. 47,100 in the names of minor children of the assessee on account of accretion in cash credits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of addition of Rs. 1,47,203 as commission paid to various agents:
The assessee, running a proprietary concern, claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,47,203 as commission paid to fifteen agents. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this claim, noting that some agents denied receiving the commission. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed the addition, citing lack of written agreements, delayed payments, and lack of evidence of services rendered by the agents.

The assessee argued that the AO violated natural justice by recording statements without allowing cross-examination. The assessee provided affidavits and statements from agents confirming receipt of commission. The Tribunal noted that the commission payments were made to boost sales, which had significantly increased during the relevant year. The Tribunal found the evidence provided by the assessee credible and held that the commission payments were genuine and made out of commercial expediency. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 1,47,203 was deleted.

2. Trading addition of Rs. 1,72,218 due to a drop in the G.P. rate:
The AO noted a drop in the Gross Profit (G.P.) rate from 21.7% to 15.9% and rejected the book results due to the non-maintenance of a day-to-day production register and alleged non-filing of stock inventory. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the stock inventory was indeed filed and the non-maintenance of a production register was not sufficient to reject the book results.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the G.P. rate of 15.59% was reasonable given the substantial increase in sales. The Tribunal also noted that the G.P. rate of 15% to 16% had been accepted in previous years, and comparable cases showed similar G.P. rates. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,72,218 was deleted.

3. Addition of Rs. 39,500 on account of squared-up cash credits:
The AO added Rs. 39,500 as undisclosed income, citing lack of evidence for squared-up accounts in the names of five individuals. The CIT(A) deleted the addition after examining the creditors and finding their statements credible.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the creditors were identified, had land holdings, filed affidavits, and stood the test of cross-examination. The Tribunal found no reason to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and deleted the addition of Rs. 39,500.

4. Addition of Rs. 47,100 in the names of minor children of the assessee on account of accretion in cash credits:
The AO added Rs. 47,100 as undisclosed income in the names of the assessee's minor children, citing failure to produce donors. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, accepting the affidavits and statements of donors who confirmed the gifts.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the gifts were evidenced by memoranda of gifts, affidavits, and statements. The Tribunal found that the donors had withdrawn money from their accounts in the assessee's books and gifted it to the minor children. The Tribunal concluded that the accretion in the names of the minor children was genuine and deleted the addition of Rs. 47,100.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the additions of Rs. 1,47,203, Rs. 1,72,218, Rs. 39,500, and Rs. 47,100. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the cross-objection by the assessee became infructuous.

← Previous Next →