2018 (4) TMI 570 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of expenses - AO observed that rate of commission paid by the assessee is higher than the commission earned by the assessee. - Held that - AO failed to comprehend that receipt as well as payment of commission could be in two different situations; how the receipt at a lower rate would justify the disallowance of commission payment at an higher rate. His order is without any logic. Similar is the position with regard to other disallowances. CIT(A) examined the issue with all possible angles and in detail. We do not see any reason to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on these issues. It is upheld. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal by Revenue against CIT(A) order for Asstt. Year 2008-09 - Disallowance of expenditure claimed by broker and commission agent - Disallowance of commission paid to agents, service tax paid, commission paid to clients, and loss from trading in shares - CIT(A) deletion of disallowance except for loss from trading in shares - Revenue's appeal against CIT(A) order.

Analysis:
The Tribunal heard the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A) order for the assessment year 2008-09. The issue revolved around the disallowance of various expenditures claimed by the assessee, who was a broker and commission agent dealing in shares and securities. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the commission paid to agents, service tax paid, commission paid to clients, and loss from trading in shares. The AO's reasoning included discrepancies in commission rates, non-claiming of expenditures, and speculative nature of share trading losses. Upon appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance except for the loss from trading in shares.

The CIT(A) extensively analyzed the matter and provided detailed reasoning for deleting the disallowances. Regarding the commission paid to agents, the CIT(A) found that the expenditure was supported by documentary evidence and allowable as business expenditure. Similarly, the disallowance of service tax paid and commission paid to clients was overturned due to proper documentation and lack of evidence proving infringement of IT Act provisions. Concerning the share trading losses, the CIT(A) differentiated between F&O transactions, delivery-based losses, and losses from client transactions. The CIT(A) allowed losses from F&O transactions and delivery-based losses as business losses but upheld the disallowance of losses from client transactions due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal compared the AO's reasoning with the CIT(A)'s detailed analysis and found the AO's disallowances lacking in logic and legal basis. The AO's sweeping disallowances without considering specific details or legal positions were deemed unjustified. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order as it was thorough and considered all aspects of the issues raised. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. The judgment was pronounced on 10th April, 2018, at Ahmedabad.