2005 (3) TMI 428 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows deduction for genuine commission payments to authorized dealers

SRMT Limited. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax.

The Tribunal upheld the genuineness of commission payments to authorized dealers, directing the AO to allow the deduction of such payments in computing ... Genuineness Of Commission To Dealers Issues Involved:1. Legality and validity of search and seizure proceedings.2. Admissibility and reliability of statements recorded during search.3. Genuineness of commission payments to authorized dealers.4. Applicability of Section 37(1) of the IT Act for commission payments.5. Applicability of Section 40A(2) of the IT Act regarding excessive payments.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality and Validity of Search and Seizure Proceedings:The search and seizure operations were conducted at the business premises of the assessee and the residential premises of the managing director on 10th February 1988, continuing till 11th February 1988. The search was conducted under a warrant of authorization dated 8th February 1988. During the search, various documents, including the cash book, ledger, credit notes, share certificates, and other slips, were found and seized. However, no undisclosed assets, bullion, or cash were found. The search was deemed legal and valid as per the provisions of the IT Act.2. Admissibility and Reliability of Statements Recorded During Search:The statement of the managing director was recorded under Section 132(4) of the IT Act during the search. The statement included admissions about the commission payments to authorized dealers being additional income of the assessee. However, the managing director retracted the statement later, claiming it was made under coercion. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the dates and signatures on the statement, indicating possible undue influence. The Tribunal held that the statement alone, without corroborative evidence, could not be considered conclusive.3. Genuineness of Commission Payments to Authorized Dealers:The assessee claimed commission payments to authorized dealers for services rendered, including booking orders and canvassing for products. The AO disallowed the commission payments, considering them non-genuine based on the managing director's statement and statements from 28 dealers. However, the Tribunal found that the authorized dealers were genuine firms, regularly assessed under the IT Act, and the commission payments were made through cheques. The Tribunal also noted that the dealers confirmed the services rendered by the authorized dealers in their affidavits and statements during cross-examination.4. Applicability of Section 37(1) of the IT Act for Commission Payments:Section 37(1) allows deduction of any expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The Tribunal held that the commission payments were incurred for business purposes and were genuine. The Tribunal emphasized that it is not for the Revenue to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should incur and under what circumstances. The reasonableness of the expenditure should be judged from the point of view of the businessman, not the Revenue.5. Applicability of Section 40A(2) of the IT Act Regarding Excessive Payments:Section 40A(2) deals with disallowance of excessive or unreasonable payments to related parties. The Tribunal found no evidence that the commission payments were excessive or unreasonable. The CIT(A)'s action of restricting the commission payments on an estimate basis was set aside by the Tribunal, stating that the CIT(A) did not have the jurisdiction to decide the quantum of expenditure once the genuineness of the expenditure was established.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the genuineness of the commission payments to authorized dealers and directed the AO to allow the deduction of the commission payments while computing the income of the assessee under the head 'Income from Business.' The appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.