2022 (6) TMI 471 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue's Appeal Dismissed, Agent Commission Justified, Credit Balances Genuine

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. It found the commission payments justified, emphasizing the ... Disallowance of service charges/commission payment - assessee is in the business of manufacture and sale of industrial explosives - HELD THAT:- The services rendered by the agents are remunerated by 'service charges', which is termed as 'commission'. The assessee has produced copies of the agreement, the ledger extracts, the bank statement showing payments made, details of the TDS etc. The A.O. has not doubted the amounts paid nor the transaction done. The only reasoning of the A.O. for making disallowance of these payments is that the orders are received from PSUs based on public tenders for which no commission need to be paid. We find that the A.O. has not understood the nature of business of the assessee. The PSUs using explosives are mostly in mining sector, which are spread across the remote areas in the country. The assessee had admittedly appointed these agents to whom the payments were made to properly execute the sales orders and there is considerable efforts made by the agents in terms of statutory compliance, storage, inventorising etc. The assessee has admittedly paid these agents at 3.5% of the sales handled by them. As stated earlier, the amounts or fact of payments has not been disputed by the A.O. The CIT(A) has rendered a categorical factual finding, which has not been dispelled by the Revenue by placing any contra evidence. In the light of the a foresaid reasons, we reject grounds 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue. Disallowing the credit balance of various parties in the books of the assessee under the head 'creditors not verifiable' - A.O. disallowed the sundry credits - HELD THAT:- The details of the parties, nature of transaction and the amounts of transaction are described in impugned order of the CIT(A). Each of the above parties transactions, it was found by the CIT(A) that the assessee has made the payment through bank accounts and had submitted copies of confirmation of transactions, the ledger extracts from all the parties evidencing payments made. The A.O. in the remand report has not raised any specific objections with regard to the submissions made by the assessee. It is in this context and after examining the evidences placed on record the CIT(A) has come to a factual finding that the amounts outstanding are genuine and explained. The above factual findings of the CIT(A) has not been controverted by the Revenue, hence, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) as correct and in accordance with law. - Decided against revenue. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of service charges/commission payment amounting to Rs. 1,03,03,601.2. Addition of Rs. 1,36,65,795 by disallowing credit balance of various parties in the books of account of the assessee.Detailed Analysis:Disallowance of Service Charges/Commission Payment Amounting to Rs. 1,03,03,601:The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed the payment of commission on the grounds that the assessee, who makes sales to public sector organizations through tender processes, does not require any commission payments for procurement of orders. Additionally, the A.O. noted that the assessee already made separate payments for handling charges, transportation, and magazine rent, and thus, there was no justification for additional commission payments.The CIT(A), however, directed the A.O. to delete the disallowance, following the precedent set in the assessee's appeals for assessment years 2010-2011 and 2013-2014, where similar disallowances were overturned. The CIT(A) emphasized that the services rendered by agents, which included statutory compliance, storage, last-mile transportation, and inventorizing, warranted the commission payments. The CIT(A) also noted that the A.O. had not disputed the amounts paid or the transactions themselves, and the payments were made at 3.5% of the sales handled by the agents.The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the A.O. had not understood the nature of the assessee's business and had no basis for disallowing the commission payments. The Tribunal found that the agents' services were necessary for executing sales orders, particularly given the remote locations of the PSUs. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's grounds, affirming that the commission payments were justified and related to the business purpose.Addition of Rs. 1,36,65,795:The A.O. added Rs. 1,36,65,795 by disallowing the credit balance of various parties, citing that the assessee only produced self-created ledger copies without third-party confirmations. The A.O. found it difficult to conclude that the transactions and expenses were genuine and for business purposes without such confirmations.The CIT(A) examined additional evidence provided by the assessee, which included account payee cheques and other documentation, and concluded that the payments were genuine. The CIT(A) noted that the A.O. had not raised any specific objections in the remand report regarding the submissions made by the assessee.The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the credit balances. The Tribunal noted that the A.O. had not contested the factual findings of the CIT(A) and confirmed that the amounts outstanding were genuine and explained. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 1,36,65,795.Conclusion:The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, with the Tribunal affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. The Tribunal found that the commission payments were necessary and justified, and the credit balances were genuine and substantiated by the evidence provided by the assessee. The order was pronounced on May 27, 2022.