2006 (3) TMI 223 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance on business development expenses - business activities in Delhi undertook the work of supply of uniform for the first time in J K in this year- duly authorized agent - payments received from the Government through banking channel - HELD THAT - In view of the documentary evidence filed on record, it is established that the volume of business of the assessee-company assumed big boost on account of supply of garments to the Government of J K. In the immediately preceding year the assessee had shown net profit of Rs. 2,171 only whereas in the assessment year under consideration its net profit went up to Rs. 13,06,958. This boost was definitely on account of the contract for supply of school uniforms cloth by the assessee. In any case, if the agent was not assessed to tax or if he did not appear before the learned CIT(A) despite request of the assessee, the assessee cannot be blamed for the same. So far as the rendering of service is concerned, there may not be a written agreement but the circumstances of the present matter strongly establish that without the services of the commission agent the assessee could not achieve such business result as has been achieved by him. The business development expenses are, therefore, fully justified as the rendering of service is proved from the circumstances of the present matter. On going through the entire documentary evidence, filed on record and in particular on appreciating the circumstances of this matter we find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee and hold that the payment of commission by the assessee was for business purposes and the same was fully justified. We, therefore, set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) and delete the disallowance of Rs. 12,54,388. Ground is allowed. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes only.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of business development expenses.
2. Disallowance of donation under Section 80G.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Business Development Expenses:

The assessee, engaged in the manufacture and sale of fabrics, claimed business development expenses of Rs. 12,54,388. The AO questioned the genuineness of these expenses, particularly because the recipient, Mr. G.R. Vakil of M/s Associated Projects & Marketing, was not produced before the AO and was not assessed to tax. The assessee argued that Mr. Vakil helped secure a tender from the J&K Government for supplying school uniform cloth worth Rs. 5,01,75,520, and the commission was paid for his services in obtaining the contract and ensuring timely payments.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's disallowance, citing a lack of evidence that Mr. Vakil rendered genuine services. The CIT(A) relied on precedents such as Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT and Lachminarayan Madan Lal vs. CIT, which emphasized the need for concrete evidence of services rendered by agents.

The assessee's counsel contested this, highlighting the significant business volume increase due to the J&K contract and the necessity of Mr. Vakil's local expertise. The counsel provided various documents, including a confirmatory letter from Mr. Vakil, bank transaction details, and correspondence with J&K authorities, to substantiate the claim.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of Mr. Vakil's services and the legitimacy of the commission payment. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's business volume and profits significantly increased due to the J&K contract, which would have been difficult to secure without Mr. Vakil's assistance. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) was not justified in disallowing the expenses, as the assessee had discharged its burden of proof. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s finding and allowed the deduction of Rs. 12,54,388.

2. Disallowance of Donation Under Section 80G:

The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 31,288 under Section 80G for donations. The AO disallowed this deduction, and the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, noting that the assessee did not provide any evidence or details to support the claim during the appellate proceedings.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee's counsel could not effectively argue this ground. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow the deduction under Section 80G, as the assessee failed to substantiate the claim with necessary evidence.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, granting the deduction for business development expenses while upholding the disallowance of the donation deduction under Section 80G. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.