2018 (1) TMI 1047 - HC - Income Tax

Justification of payment of commission - parties related to directors - correctness of the finding of the ITAT that the commission agents of the assessee had rendered services to the assessee so as to justify payment - CIT had affirmed the additions made by the AO by merely recording that exact nature of services rendered and the volume of orders procured etc. were not elucidated. - Held that - Reasoning given by the ITAT and the factual matrix being contrary to the reasoning given by the AO and the CIT(A), we do not think that the impugned order can be treated as perverse. While considering the question of perversity of a finding of fact, the test applicable is rather strict. The finding should be such which is arrived at without any material, or upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts found are such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law would have come to that determination. This test and benchmark is to be satisfied. It is not possible to hold so in the present case, and interfere. We are not required to reappraise the facts as an appellate court and decide whether we could have arrived at a different factual finding and conclusion. No question of law - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the payment of commission to commission agents by the assessee for the assessment years 1994-1995, 1996-1997, and 1997-1998.

Analysis:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the payment of commission to commission agents by the assessee, specifically M/s Sikand Farm and M/s R&A Exports, for the assessment year 1994-1995. The Revenue contended that the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) were perverse and unjustified, leading to the deletion of the addition on account of commission paid to the mentioned firms. The Revenue argued that these payments should not have been allowed as business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT's findings indicated that the commission agreements were duly executed, payments were made based on sales, and the receipt of commission was reflected in the agents' financial records, with taxes paid on the income. The ITAT also highlighted that the Revenue had accepted similar commission payments in previous assessment years, indicating inconsistency in their stance. The ITAT's decision was based on the evidence provided by the assessee, including confirmations, statements of accounts, and commission agreements, which demonstrated the genuineness of the payments made to the commission agents.

Moving on to the assessment order for the assessment year 1994-1995, it was noted that commission was paid to M/s North Star Marketing (P) Ltd., which was not disallowed, further supporting the assessee's practice of paying commission. The Revenue's argument relied on the assessment order, which did not consider the agreements and confirmation letters submitted by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had affirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer, citing lack of clarity on the nature of services rendered. However, the High Court found that the ITAT's reasoning was not perverse, as the factual matrix supported their decision. The court emphasized that the test for perversity of a finding of fact is strict, requiring a determination that could not reasonably be entertained based on the facts found. In this case, the court concluded that the ITAT's decision was not perverse, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the respondent assessee, holding that the ITAT's decision was not perverse. The court highlighted the importance of factual findings and the strict test for perversity in such cases, ultimately disposing of the appeal without costs.