2018 (5) TMI 1696 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Rules in Favor of Assessee, Overturns Disallowance

Shri Virendra Kumar Jain, Prop. M/s. Virendra Enterprises Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward Tonk

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee by deleting both the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and the addition related to ... TDS u/s 194H - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of bogus expenses on account of commission/discount to retailers - payment to retailers by the Mobile operators through the distributor/dealers/retailers - contra entries passed in the books of accounts - Held that:- The payment was not made by the assessee and it was directly paid by the company and further the quantum and percentage of the said commission/discount was also in the full control of the company and not in the hands of the assessee - assessee only made necessary entries in his books - thus merely because the assessee has passed the contra entry would not bring the said transaction in the category of commission paid by the assessee so as to attract the provisions of u/s 194H - Decided in favor of assessee. Addition on account of bogus commission expenses - Held that:- Where the payments are directly made by the company to the retailers and the assessee is only showing the entries in the books for receipts as well as payments without actual receipt and payment of the said amount, then the AO cannot made addition by looking one side of the transaction - thus addition made by AO is not justified - Decided in favor of assessee Issues Involved:1. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Addition on account of alleged bogus commission expenses.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The assessee, engaged in trading mobile accessories, was disallowed a commission payment of Rs. 16,41,989/- by the AO under section 40(a)(ia) for not deducting TDS. The assessee argued that the commission was paid directly by the mobile operator (Vodafone Digilink Pvt. Ltd.) to the retailers based on sales figures provided by the assessee, and thus, the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS. The CIT (A) upheld the AO’s decision, but the assessee provided confirmation from Vodafone Digilink Pvt. Ltd. that the payment was controlled and made by the company, not the assessee.The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and relevant material. It noted that the payment was directly made by Vodafone Digilink Pvt. Ltd., and the assessee merely recorded contra entries for accounting purposes. The Tribunal referenced the decision in the case of M/s. Chocopack Enterprises vs. ITO, where it was held that the distributor is not obligated to deduct TDS when the service provider directly pays the commission. The Tribunal concluded that since the assessee was only an intermediary and did not control the commission payment, the provisions of section 194H were not applicable. Consequently, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.2. Addition on account of alleged bogus commission expenses:The AO found discrepancies in the assessee's books, noting payments of Rs. 95,846/- and Rs. 39,034/- from Vodafone Digilink Pvt. Ltd. that were not accounted for by the assessee. The assessee contended that these amounts were directly paid to the retailers by Vodafone Digilink Pvt. Ltd., and the entries in the books were merely for accounting purposes. The AO did not accept this explanation and made the additions.The Tribunal examined the business model where mobile operators directly pay commissions to retailers, and the assessee, as a dealer, only makes accounting entries. It was noted that the payments were determined by the mobile operators, and the assessee had no role in deciding the commission amount. The Tribunal found that the AO’s addition was unjustified, as the assessee did not actually receive the payments. Therefore, the addition was deleted.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting both the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and the addition on account of alleged bogus commission expenses. The order was pronounced in the open court on 24/05/2018.