2018 (4) TMI 1578 - HC - Income Tax

Court upholds Tribunal decision on commission expenses, citing commercial justifications & past acceptance.

The High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Tribunal's decision to allow the commission expenses disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The court ... Disallowance of commission expenses - The stand of the Department that the business related to government supplies, no commission is required, MPLUN is merely facilitators and the actual buyers are Public Works Department and Indore Development Authority, and therefore, representatives of the assessee collects the orders from these departments and also collect due for the assessee – firm. Held that:- we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of commission payments debited to the profit and loss account. - the asessee is dealing in supplies of sign board etc. which required fixing site visit measurement etc. for which commission agents have rendered the service as these agents are having experience in work and expertise of government supply. Therefore, requirement of Representatives for doing such jobs cannot be denied - Decided against the revenue. Issues involved:1. Justification of allowing commission expenses disallowed by the Assessing Officer.2. Genuineness of commission payments to sister concern.3. Role of Madhya Pradesh Laghu Udyog Nigam Limited (MPLUN) as facilitators.4. Approval of commission payments by Government Agencies.5. Consistency in allowing commission expenses in previous assessments.Detailed Analysis:1. The main issue in these income tax appeals was whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was correct in allowing the commission expenses disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The appellant, a supplier to Government Departments, claimed commission expenses paid to various parties, including MPLUN. The Assessing Officer disallowed some payments due to lack of proof of genuineness. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the expenses considering the commercial decision of the appellant, supported by past assessments where similar commissions were accepted.2. The appellant's failure to prove the genuineness of commission payments to a sister concern led to the proceedings for Assessment Year 2008-09 being set aside under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. This challenge by the appellant resulted in an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to address the disallowance of these commission payments.3. The role of MPLUN as facilitators in the supply chain was a crucial aspect of the case. The appellant argued that MPLUN acted as facilitators, while the actual buyers were Government Departments like PWD and IDA. The appellant's representatives collected orders and payments from these departments, justifying the commission expenses as necessary for their business operations.4. The involvement and approval of commission payments by Government Agencies, such as PWD and IDA, were highlighted in the case. The appellant's representatives were confirmed to carry out various services related to the supply of goods, and the TDS payments were made through cheques, establishing the genuineness of the expenses.5. The consistency in allowing commission expenses in previous assessments for the appellant was a significant point of contention. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) based on the precedent set by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pure Pharma. The Tribunal found that the order dated 30.06.2017 was just and proper, considering the law laid down in the Pure Pharma case and the acceptance of similar commission payments in earlier assessments.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeals, stating that no substantial question of law arose from the case. The Tribunal's order allowing the commission expenses was upheld based on the established facts and legal precedents, emphasizing the commercial decisions and past acceptance of similar expenses in the appellant's assessments.