Tribunal Upholds CIT(A) Decisions on Lease Rent, Commission Payments, Nursery Expenditure, and Sales Promotion Expenses

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions to reverse the disallowance of lease rent payments, commission payments to non-resident export agents, and stores and spares consumption claims. It also supported the treatment of nursery expenditure as revenue and allowed a partial disallowance of sales promotion expenses. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed except for a minor adjustment in one appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of lease rent payments.
2. Disallowance of commission payments to non-resident export agents.
3. Disallowance of stores and spares consumption claims.
4. Disallowance of nursery expenditure.
5. Disallowance of sales promotion expenditure.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Lease Rent Payments:
The Revenue challenged the correctness of the CIT(A)’s decision to reverse the disallowance of lease rent payments made by the assessee to M/s Koomber Properties & Leasing Co. Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal noted that this issue had been consistently decided in favor of the assessee in previous assessment years (1988-89 to 1992-93) and that the Revenue’s appeals against these decisions were still pending before the jurisdictional high court. The CIT(A) had adopted judicial consistency based on these precedents. The tribunal found no merit in the Revenue’s appeal due to a lack of distinction on facts or law and thus rejected the Revenue’s grievance.

2. Disallowance of Commission Payments to Non-Resident Export Agents:
The Revenue sought to restore the disallowance of commission payments made to non-resident export agents by the Assessing Officer due to non-deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The CIT(A) had reversed this disallowance, noting that the services were rendered outside India and that the agents had no permanent establishment in India. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, which clarified that TDS obligations under section 195 arise only if the payments are chargeable to tax in India. The tribunal also noted that similar disallowances had been deleted in previous assessment years.

3. Disallowance of Stores and Spares Consumption Claims:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowances related to stores and spares consumption claims. The CIT(A) had detailed the nature of the expenses and noted that the proportion of expenses had remained consistent with previous years. The tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not provided specific findings to support the disallowance and had not identified any irregularities in the assessee’s books of account. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, noting that the assessee had consistently succeeded on this issue in previous years.

4. Disallowance of Nursery Expenditure:
The Revenue disputed the deletion of nursery expenditure disallowance, arguing that such expenditures provided an enduring advantage and should be treated as capital in nature. The CIT(A) had accepted the assessee’s argument that the nursery expenses were related to the maintenance and upkeep of immature plants used for replanting within the existing plantation area. The tribunal cited the jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT vs. Tasati Tea Ltd., which supported the treatment of such expenses as revenue expenditure. The tribunal rejected the Revenue’s appeal, emphasizing that the enduring advantage argument was not sufficient to classify the expenditure as capital.

5. Disallowance of Sales Promotion Expenditure:
The Revenue sought to revive the disallowance of sales promotion expenses due to a lack of supporting evidence for a portion of the claimed amount. The CIT(A) had noted that the disallowed amount represented a small percentage of the total sales promotion expenses and involved payments to numerous small parties. The tribunal concluded that a lump sum disallowance of Rs. 1.00 lakh out of the disputed amount would be just and proper, given the circumstances, and directed that this should not be treated as a precedent for other years.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeals for ITA No. 2086/Kol/2016 and ITA No. 2087/Kol/2016, while partly allowing the appeal for ITA No. 2088/Kol/2016 with a minor disallowance adjustment. The order was pronounced in the open court on 17/08/2018.

---