9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the commission payments of Rs. 72,813 made to three parties represent deductible business expenditure of the assessee-company. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deductibility of Commission Payments as Business Expenditure Background and Context: The assessee, a private limited company engaged in the export of tobacco, paid commissions to three parties for allegedly collecting orders for exporting tobacco to the USSR. The payments were as follows: - CTC International, Madras: Rs. 54,611 - MO Nandini Nambiar: Rs. 9,101 - N. Jayapalan, Madras: Rs. 9,101 The total commission amounted to 2% of the FOB value of the tobacco exported to the USSR. Arguments and Findings of the Income Tax Officer (ITO): The ITO required the assessee to provide reasons for the commission payments and evidence of services rendered by the three parties. The assessee admitted that there was no documentary evidence such as agreements or correspondence to prove the services rendered, asserting that the payments were based on oral agreements. The ITO found no evidence of the parties being appointed as agents or rendering any services to obtain orders from the USSR. Consequently, the ITO disallowed the commission payments, adding Rs. 72,813 to the assessee's income. Arguments and Findings of the Commissioner (Appeals): The assessee appealed, arguing that the payments were made by crossed account payee cheques and relied on several Supreme Court decisions to support the claim that the commission payments were genuine business expenses. The Commissioner (Appeals) was persuaded by the assessee's arguments, noting that the ITO did not doubt the genuineness of the payments or their receipt by the parties. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the commission payments, deleting the addition to the returned income. Appellate Tribunal's Analysis: The Revenue appealed against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal examined whether the commission payments were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business. 1. Lack of Documentary Evidence: - The Tribunal noted the absence of documentary evidence such as agreements, correspondence, or proof of services rendered by the three parties. The payments were allegedly made based on oral agreements, and no resolutions authorizing the commission payments were passed by the assessee company. 2. Contradictory Statements: - There were discrepancies in the mode of payment statements. Before the ITO, it was stated that payments were made earlier and adjusted in the accounts, while before the Commissioner (Appeals), it was argued that payments were made by crossed account payee cheques. 3. Onus of Proof: - Citing the Calcutta High Court decision in Vishnu Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, the Tribunal emphasized that the onus was on the assessee to establish that the commission payments were for business purposes. The mere fact that the payments were shown in the commission agents' income tax returns and assessed was not conclusive proof of services rendered or that the expenditure was for business purposes. 4. Relevant Case Law: - The Tribunal referred to several decisions, including: - Commissioner, Bombay v. Walchand & Co. Pvt. Ltd., where the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal could determine whether a payment was incurred in the character of a trader or for business purposes. - J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. Commissioner, UP, where the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of commercial expediency from the businessman's perspective. - Amritlal & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner (Central), Bombay, where the Bombay High Court held that proving the payments alone was insufficient to claim a deduction; the purpose of the payments had to be satisfactorily established. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to discharge its burden of proving that the commission payments were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The disallowance made by the ITO was justified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the Revenue's appeal.
|
