TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 615
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onducted in the assessee's premises on July 29, 1986. The asses- see's main income during the year is from the contract receipts for civil construction from M/s. Karnataka Ball Bearings Corporation Ltd. The material on record disclose that the assessee submitted a tender for Rs. 1,28,18,413 dated March 29, 1982, for civil work for the aforesaid company to their architects, Master and Associates, Bangalore. On July 16, 1982, the assessee was intimated about the allotment of the work. Accord- ing to the assessee, the work commenced in August whereas the Income- tax Officer refers to the assessee's own letter wherefrom it could be detected that the commencement of work is on July 16, 1982. At the relevant point of time, Sri A. P. Mehta was the chairman and his son, Sri- Jairaj P Mehta was the managing director. There were ether relatives of Sri Mehta in the board., 3. On the date of search, the assessee's main partner, Sri J. K. Panthaki, was questioned, inter alia in respect of purchases of steel from M/s. Maneesh and Co., and M/s. Chimanlal R. Mehta. It was pointed out that there are no delivery or sales tax check post, seals or evidence of lorry numbers. Sri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count of the assessee during the financial years ended March 31, 1983, and March 31, 1984. Initially, A. P. Mehta and group were refusing to acknowledge any commission due or cash receipts. Therefore, it was mutually decided to remove the said commission from the books of account during the aforesaid financial years by debiting materials accounts in the form of fictitious steel bills procured from Chimanlal R. Mehta and Manish and Co. The commission of around three-and-half per cent. payable to Chimanlal R. Mehta and Manish and Co. for procurement of such fictitious steel bills was borne by A. P. Mehta and group and the assessee was remitting such commission to the said steel bill suppliers on behalf of A. P. Mehta and group. In the original return filed by the assessee the said commission was shown under materials account. Subsequently, A. P. Mehta and group gave confirmations and cash receipts pursuant to which a revised return was filed. In the revised return filed on September 3, 1986, commission of Rs. 45,84,851 was deleted, from materials account and shown correctly under the com- mission account resulting in no change in the income returned as compared in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....J. K. Panthaki and Co. during the financial years ended March 31, 1983, and March 31, 1984. The time, mode, quantum and place of remittance is left to be decided by Mr. J. K. Panthaki and Mr. A. P. Mehta on behalf of other partners. Remittance is in the following manner : Mr. A. P. Mehta Rs. 13.80 lakhs ; Mr. Jayaraj A. Mehta Rs. 12.85 lakhs ; Mrs. Prabhavathi A. Mehta, Rs 7.5 lakhs ; Mrs. Susheela J. Mehta Rs. 9.75 lakhs and Miss. Raksha A. Mehta Rs. 4.45 lakhs. Thus, there is a first oral agreement confirmed by the minutes dated January 2, 1987. 5. The appellate authority, after carefully considering the case of the asses- see and scrutinizing the documents produced, upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer in disallowing the deduction of the said commission paid. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, on reappreciation of the entire material on record, after referring to the judgments relied on, held the payment of this nature even if it is disclosed in their accounts cannot be allowed. The payer induces the other party to deceive the shareholders. The other party is a public limited com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended, wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed, in computing the income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred, for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure. (2B) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no allowance shall be made in respect of expenditure incurred by an assessee on advertisement in any souvenir, brochure, tract, pamphlet or the like published, by a political party." 8. The apex court in the case of Indian Molasses Co. (Private) Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 66 (SC), dealing with the principles for allowance or expenditure, held as under (page 78) : "But there is no case directly on what is 'expenditure', and if the authorities under the English statute were to be of real assista....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure was made exclusively for the purpose of the business is not taken away. 10. The expenditure incurred must be for commercial expediency. In applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether an expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the Revenue. The expression "commercial expediency" is an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure, if it was incurred on the grounds of commercial expediency. 11. The apex court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) reported in [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) held, at para 26 as under (page 8) : "The expression 'commercial expediency' is an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation but yet it is allowable as a busine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervices. It is an allowance, recompense or reward, made to agents, factors, brokers and others for effecting sales or carrying out business transactions. It is generally calculated, as a certain percentage on the amount of the transaction or on the profit to the principals." 15. In Blacks Law Dictionary, sixth edition, the word "commission" has been defined as under : "The recompense, compensation or reward of an agent, salesman executor, trustee, receiver, factor, broker, or bailee, when the same is calculated as a percentage on the amount of his transactions or on the profit to the principal." 16. The word "commission" is used occasionally to mean "discount". What is called "commission", is a percentage deducted in the case of goods which are consigned the ordinary invoice price. It is in the nature of compensation paid to a person who has rendered service instead of paying remuneration. He has been paid compensation on percentage basis or on a price basis. The word "commission" has some what different connotation and is used differently in different contexts. 17. It is well settled principle that exigibility of an item to tax or tax deduction can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, to the person who is lawfully entitled to the same. Instead of restoring the advantage to the company which paid him the amount, he has repaid the said amount to the directors of the company. The said payment is not made for any services rendered by them. Therefore, the said amount cannot be construed as commission or expenditure incurred under section 37 of the Act so as to be eligible for being deducted in arriving at income of the assessee under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" because it is not an expenditure laid out or expended fully and exclusively for the purpose of business. 19. Yet another way of looking at things is, there is a clear case of collusion between the directors of the company and the assessee. In the tender which is floated, they have submitted prices which are higher than the normal price. Accordingly, the payment is made. After awarding the contract, they have reduced the price and agreed to receive the difference of price in their name. The assessee has obliged them. It is obvious that it is a kick back or bribe. It is an illegal gratification. It is a scheme adopted to siphon out the money belonging to the company. They wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mited reported in [1966] 61 ITR 480 (Mad) wherein, the Madras High Court dealing with the question as to whether the payment of tips or presents and mamools are illegal or allowable deduction, has held as under (headnote) : "It upheld the order of the Tribunal which has held that the expenditure was inevitable if the assessee had to run its business, that they were 'greases to run the bus business smoothly' and since in the very nature of the expenditure there could be no documentary evidence, the amounts claimed to have been expended, were reasonable having regard to the large collection and the income returned and hence allowable. With regard to the resolution allowing the manager and cashier to receive the commissions or rebates and sale proceeds of tyres, the Tribunal interpreted the resolution as one enhancing the salary of the manager and cashier . . . Though tips may be improper, they were not illegal and in view of the finding of the Tribunal that the expenditure sought to be deducted, was inevitable if the assessee had to carry on its business and did not pertain to anything illegal or improper, the Tribunal was right in allowing the deduction." 24. In th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s loss on account of seizure is an allowable deduction while computing his profits and gains of business/ profession. The High Court wrongly applied section 37 to the facts of the said case and the deduction was not allowed. It is in that context, the Supreme Court held that the High Court has adopted emotional and moral approach rather than a legal approach. In fact, in paragraph 18 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has categorically stated that the Explanation to section 37 has really nothing to do with the present case as it is not a case of business expenditure, but of business loss. Business losses are allowable on ordinary commercial principles in computing profits. Therefore, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the case as in the instant case, the assessee is not claiming deduction as business loss, he is claiming deduction as business expenditure, which is not permissible in law. 29. It is true that cases are to he decided by the court on legal principles and not on one's own moral views. Law is different from morality. The provision should be so interpreted and the words used therein should be assigned such meaning as would enable the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the case of Virender Singh v. Laxmi Narain reported in [2007] AIR 2007 (NOC) Delhi 2039 has held as under : "11. The doctrine or rule of pari delicto is the embodiment of the principle that the courts will refuse to enforce an illegal agreement at the instance of a person who is himself a party to an illegality or fraud. As per Blacks' Law Dictionary (fifth edition), the maxim-pari delicto portior est conditio possidentis (defendentis) means : 'in a case of equal or mutual fault (between two parties) the con- dition of the party in possession (or defending) is the better one. Where each party is equally in fault the law favours him who is actu- ally in possession. Where the fault is mutual the law will leave the case as it finds it. In Herbert Broom's "A Selection of Legal Maxims (10th edition) the maxim is explained as follows : "The maxim, in pari delicto portior est conditio possidentis, is as thoroughly settled as any proposition of law can be. It is a maxim of law established not for the benefit of plaintiffs or defendants but is founded, on the principles of public policy, which will not assist a plaintiff who has paid over money, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, only such disbursements can be deducted as are really incidental to the business itself. They cannot be deducted if they fall on the assessee in some character other than that of a trader. There- fore, where a penalty is incurred for the contravention of any specific statutory provision, it cannot be said to be a commercial loss falling on the assessee as a trader the test being that the expenses which are for the purpose of enabling a person to carry on trade for making profits in the business are permitted but not if they are merely connected with the business. 9. It was argued that unless the penalty is of a nature which is personal to the assessee and if it is merely ordered against the goods imported it is an allowable deduction. That, in our opinion, is an erroneous distinction because disbursement is deductible only if it falls within section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act and no such deduction can be made unless it falls within the test laid down in the cases discussed above and it can be said to be expenditure wholly and exclusively laid for the purpose of the business. Can it be said that a penalty paid for an infraction of the law, even though it may involv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... forbidden by law. Such consideration or object would be unlawful according to the provisions of that section and the agreement would consequently be void. The High Court did not decide the point whether the contracts which contravened the provisions of section 15(4) of the Act were illegal. It did not consider it material to decide whether the impugned contracts were illegal. In its opinion what was material was that the impugned contracts had been entered into unlawfully and the question was whether the loss sustained in the unlawful business could be taken into account in computing the business income of the assessee. We consider that the first question which was referred to the High Court stands concluded by the law laid down by this court in Sunder Lal and Son v. Bharat Handicrafts P. Ltd. [1968] 1 SCR 608 ; AIR 1968 SC 406. It was laid down that the prohibition imposed by section 15(4) of the Act was not imposed in the interest of the Revenue. That provision was conceived in the larger interest of the public to protect them against the malpractices indulged in by members of recognised associations in respect of transactions in which their duties as agents came into conflict w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of his pocket. A loss is something different. That is not a thing which he expends or disburses. That is a thing which comes upon him ab extra' (Finlay J. in Allen v. Farquharson Brothers and Co. [1932] 17 TC 59 (KB)). If the business is illegal neither the profits earned nor the losses incurred would be enforceable in law. But, that does not take the profits out of the taxing statute. Similarly, the taint of illegality of the business cannot detract from the losses being taken into account for computation of the amount which can be subjected to tax as 'profits' under section 10(1) of the Act of 1922. The tax collector cannot be heard to say that he will bring the gross receipts to tax. He can only tax profits of a trade or business. That cannot be done without deducting the losses and the legitimate expenses of the business. We concur in the view of the High Court that for the purpose of section 10(1) the losses which have actually been incurred in carrying on a particular illegal business must be deducted before the true figure relating to profits which have to be brought to tax can be computed or determined. This will, however, not conclude the answer to question No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ofits out of the taxing statute. Similarly, the taint of illegality of the business cannot detract from the losses being taken into account for computation of the amount which can be subjected to tax as "profits". Only profits of a trade or business can he taxed. That cannot be done without deducting the losses and the legitimate expenses of the business. The losses which have actually been incurred in carrying on a particular illegal business must he deducted before the true figure relating to profits which have to be brought to tax can be computed or determined. The distinction between an infraction of the law committed in the carrying on of a lawful business, and an infraction of the law committed in a business inherently unlawful, and constituting a normal incident of it has to be kept in mind. Not every immoral act is criminal, it is an abuse of the process of a court, to attempt to create a new crime in order to compel men to conform to a high standard of probity in business dealings or to force them to execute their promises. 38. Infraction of the law is not a normal incident of business. Only such disbursements can be deducted as are really incidental to the busines....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or con- sideration is unlawful is void." 41. Therefore, it is clear that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless the court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. If the consideration or object of an agreement is unlawful, then the said agreement is void. Then the said agreement is not enforceable by law. Illustration (J) to section 23 brings home the point explicitly, where it is stated as under : "(J) A, who is B's Mukhtar, promises to exercise his influence, as such, with D in favour of C, and C promises to pay 1,000 rupees to A. The agreement is void because it is immoral." 42. Therefore, under the Indian law, an agreement to pay illegal gratification is expressly declared as immoral and consequently such an agreement is void and not enforceable. It is not the judge or the court which is declaring such act as immoral. The law declares it as immoral. Though law is different from morality, in the case of illegal gratification payable under an agreement there is convergence of views. There are laws in the country expressly declaring p....