2025 (4) TMI 603 - AT - Income Tax

Commission payments disallowed as expenditure under Section 57, additions confirmed by tax authorities

Vivek Sheel Aggarwal Versus DCIT, Circle 23 (1), New Delhi.

The ITAT Delhi upheld the CIT(A)'s decision confirming additions under section 57 and disallowing commission payments claimed as expenditure under section ... Additions u/s 57 and disallowance of payment of commission claimed as expenditure u/s 57 - HELD THAT:- No infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A). Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of CIT (A) and affirmed the orders of the lower authorities, hence the grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment are:a) Whether the assessee's claim of interest deduction under Section 57 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in addition to the deduction under Section 24(b), is valid.b) Whether the disallowance of commission expenses claimed by the assessee as deductions under Section 57 is justified.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISa) Interest Deduction under Section 57Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework involves Sections 24(b) and 57 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 24(b) allows deduction of interest on borrowed capital for acquiring or constructing house property, while Section 57 allows deductions for expenses incurred to earn income from other sources.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the interest claimed under Section 57 was justifiable. The assessee claimed a deduction for interest paid on a loan, arguing that the loan was used for purposes other than the house property. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the loan was utilized for income-earning purposes other than the house property.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found that the loan was sanctioned as a home loan, and the certificate from Axis Bank indicated the interest was related to the home loan. The assessee did not furnish a board resolution, loan application form, or utilization certificate to substantiate the claim that the loan was used for purposes other than the house property.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied Section 24(b) and determined that the interest deduction under Section 57 was not permissible since the loan was primarily for home acquisition, and the assessee had already claimed a deduction under Section 24(b).Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal considered the assessee's argument that the loan was used for other purposes but found it unsupported by evidence. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's disallowance of the interest deduction under Section 57.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the interest deduction under Section 57 was not allowable as the loan was used for acquiring house property, and the assessee failed to prove otherwise.b) Disallowance of Commission ExpensesRelevant legal framework and precedents: The issue concerns the disallowance of commission expenses claimed under Section 57, which requires expenses to be incurred for earning income from other sources.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal evaluated whether the commission expenses were genuine and incurred for earning income. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses due to lack of evidence and non-genuine transactions.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce evidence of genuine commission payments. Summons issued to recipients like Shri Dushyant went unanswered, and Shri Sumit Hooda denied receiving commissions, stating he was a salaried employee with no commission entitlement.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principles under Section 57 and found that the commission expenses were not substantiated by evidence. The lack of confirmation from recipients and the denial by one recipient supported the disallowance.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal considered the assessee's argument that the disallowance was based on one recipient's statement. However, the Tribunal found the overall lack of evidence justified the disallowance.Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses due to insufficient evidence of genuine transactions.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that 'the appellant has not been able to submit a single correspondence with the Axis Bank, which proves the purpose of the loan received was to advance it to the company/sister concern.'Core principles established: The judgment reinforced that deductions under Section 57 require clear evidence of expenses incurred for earning income. It also highlighted the necessity for documentary evidence to support claims of loan utilization for purposes other than those stated in loan agreements.Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal affirmed the disallowance of the interest deduction under Section 57 and the disallowance of commission expenses, dismissing the assessee's appeal.