9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 678 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of commission - assessee is an individual engaged in the business of export of engineering goods to USA and gulf countries - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of commission u/s 37(1) - Held that - Assessee has discharged his onus regarding the commission on both the counts viz. (i) that the payment was actually made; and (ii) that the payment was made for the purpose of business. As far as the issue of allowing additional evidence to be submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) has given a specific finding in Para 5.1 of the impugned order that, the appellant has certified that all the evidences relied upon were provided to the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings . Therefore, on an overall consideration of the facts of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) - Decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of commission paid to Mrs. Rakhi Arora under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 without providing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Commission Paid to Mrs. Rakhi Arora under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The core issue in this case revolves around the disallowance of a commission amounting to Rs. 1,04,08,243/- paid to Mrs. Rakhi Arora. The assessee, engaged in the export business of engineering goods, had appointed Mrs. Rakhi Arora as an agent for canvassing and promoting orders in the USA and for the realization of sale proceeds. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the commission payment, citing that the assessee failed to prove the actual efforts made by Mrs. Rakhi Arora in affecting the sales. The AO deemed the transaction to be a sham and disallowed the expense under Section 37(1). The assessee argued that similar disallowance for Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07 had been restored to the AO by the ITAT for fresh adjudication. The ITAT had directed the AO to verify various documents, including email communications, to determine the genuineness of the services rendered by Mrs. Rakhi Arora. Subsequently, the AO accepted the commission claim for AY 2006-07 after re-examination. For the current year under consideration, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] also accepted the commission claim after detailed consideration of the facts and the ITAT's order for AY 2006-07. The CIT(A) noted that all relevant evidence, including the agreement, invoices, email communications, and confirmation from M/s Waukesha Iron Foundry Inc., were produced and verified. The CIT(A) concluded that the commission was paid for actual services rendered and allowed the deduction. 2. Admission of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962: The Department contended that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A without providing the AO an opportunity to examine the same. However, the CIT(A) clarified that all evidence relied upon was provided to the AO during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) had considered the evidence in light of the ITAT's directions and found them satisfactory to establish the genuineness of the commission payment. Conclusion: The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, stating that the assessee had sufficiently discharged the onus of proving the commission payment both in terms of actual payment and its purpose for business. The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the Department's appeal. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the payment was made for business purposes and all necessary evidence had been duly considered. Order: The appeal of the Department was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 19th February 2016.
|
