2014 (5) TMI 994 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of commission Admission of additional evidences Held that - CIT(A) was rightly of the view that there is no evidence with the revenue to show that expenses were not incurred for the purposes of the business of the assessee or that services were not rendered by any of these persons - the assessee has been paying commission in past also and no disallowance has ever been made - the department has not raised any issue challenging the admission of additional evidence, the contention of revenue in this context cannot be entertained there was merit in the contention of the assessee that there is no allegation about payments having been made to specified parties u/s 40A(2)(b) - The fact that payments are through a/c payee cheques, payees are assessed to tax, TDS has been deducted, relevant details filed, have not been disputed - unless a specific payment is pointed out to be non-genuine or not incurred for the purpose of business, the business expenditure cannot be disallowed on ad hoc basis thus, there is no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) Decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Disallowance of commission claimed in profit loss account.
2. Lack of agreements and confirmation for commission expenditure.
3. Increase in commission expenditure without proper explanation.

Issue 1: Disallowance of Commission Claimed in Profit Loss Account
The appellant, an assessee company engaged in trading medical products, faced a challenge regarding the substantial increase in commission expenditure during the assessment year 2006-07. The Assessing Officer (AO) questioned the basis for the increased commission payment and asked for agreements with agents to substantiate the claim. The AO disallowed a portion of the commission amount on an estimate. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] later overturned this disallowance, citing overwhelming evidence provided by the company. The CIT(A) highlighted that the agents' details were on record, payments were made via account payee cheques with TDS deductions, and invoices and bills supported the commission payments. The CIT(A) emphasized that no evidence suggested the expenses were not for business purposes. The CIT(A) also noted that similar payments were made in the past without disallowance. The Revenue challenged this decision.

Issue 2: Lack of Agreements and Confirmation for Commission Expenditure
The Revenue contended that the AO's findings and the CIT(A)'s observations were contradictory regarding the evidence submitted by the assessee. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) granted relief based on additional evidence not presented before the AO, without seeking a remand report. The Revenue claimed that the CIT(A) erred in providing relief without proper application by the assessee and without considering the alleged vagueness of the initial submissions. The Revenue sought a reversal of the CIT(A)'s decision based on these discrepancies.

Issue 3: Increase in Commission Expenditure Without Proper Explanation
The appellant defended against the Revenue's claims, stating that all payments were made through legitimate channels with proper documentation. The appellant emphasized that the expenditure was wholly for business purposes and had been allowed in previous years. The appellant highlighted that no specific payments were identified as non-genuine or unrelated to the business, challenging the ad hoc disallowance by the AO. The appellant also referenced similar cases for subsequent assessment years where the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete ad hoc additions to commission payments. The ITAT, in those cases, emphasized the lack of sufficient reasons for disallowance and upheld the deductibility of the commission. The ITAT, in the present case, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the lack of challenges to the additional evidence and the absence of specific non-genuine payments.

In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of commission claimed in the profit loss account for the appellant. The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing the lack of challenges to additional evidence and the absence of specific non-genuine payments identified by the AO. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the decision was pronounced on April 28, 2014.

← Previous Next →