Tribunal limits commission disallowance to persons under investigation, emphasizes need for evidence

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, restricting the disallowance of commission expenditure to the ten persons subject to enquiry by the Assessing Officer. The disallowance for the remaining recipients was deleted, emphasizing that claims supported by documentary evidence cannot be disallowed without proper disproval through enquiry. The Tribunal upheld the A.O.'s decision to disallow payments to the ten individuals investigated, based on lack of evidence supporting the business purpose of the expenditure.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of commission expenditure of Rs. 97,58,305/- by the Assessing Officer (A.O.).
2. Rejection of legitimate business expenditure by the A.O. and CIT(A).
3. Applicability of the rule of consistency in the assessment of commission expenditure.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Commission Expenditure:
The primary issue revolves around the disallowance of Rs. 97,58,305/- paid as commission by the assessee. The A.O. noted that the commission rate of 6.23% on sales appeared excessively high compared to the prevailing trade rates. The A.O. requested the assessee to produce the recipients for examination, but the assessee failed to do so. Summons issued to ten recipients under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, resulted in non-appearance of the recipients, with only three responding. The A.O. found that the commission amounts were immediately withdrawn or transferred, raising suspicions of siphoning off funds. Consequently, the A.O. disallowed the entire commission payment.

2. Rejection of Legitimate Business Expenditure:
The assessee argued that the commission payments were legitimate business expenditures, incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, and had been consistently allowed in previous years with only partial disallowances. The assessee provided confirmations, returns of income, and other details of the recipients, and contended that the disallowance of the entire commission was unjustified. The assessee cited the rule of consistency and relied on judicial precedents, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision in Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Amit Jain, asserting that the A.O. should not deviate from past assessments without distinguishing facts or materials.

3. Applicability of the Rule of Consistency:
The assessee emphasized the rule of consistency, highlighting that in previous years, the A.O. had only partially disallowed commission payments, restricted to 5% or ad hoc amounts. The assessee argued that the A.O. was bound to follow this rule and should not have disallowed the entire commission for the current year. The A.O., however, argued that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to taxation matters and presented a case of siphoning money through bogus claims. The A.O. noted that the commission rate was unusually high, and the assessee failed to establish the services rendered by the recipients.

Tribunal’s Findings:
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and relevant material on record. It noted that in previous years, disallowances were ad hoc due to the lack of supporting evidence. For the current year, the A.O. conducted a detailed enquiry, issuing summons to ten recipients, but none appeared, and the responses received raised further doubts. The Tribunal highlighted that the onus is on the assessee to prove that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce evidence to support the commission payments and that the A.O.'s findings of immediate withdrawal or transfer of commission amounts were significant.

The Tribunal upheld the A.O.'s disallowance to the extent of the commission paid to the ten persons who were subject to enquiry. However, it restricted the disallowance only to these ten persons, deleting the disallowance for the remaining recipients for whom no proper enquiry was conducted. The Tribunal clarified that the A.O. cannot disallow claims supported by documentary evidence without disproving them through proper enquiry.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. The Tribunal restricted the disallowance of commission expenditure to the ten persons for whom the A.O. conducted an enquiry, while deleting the disallowance for the remaining recipients. The order was pronounced in the open court on 19/11/2018.

---