TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 644
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was not correct in deleting the disallowance as there is a direct relation between the principal and agent as assessee is agent of BSNL. Therefore, provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is clearly attracted on the amount of commission earned by assessee from BSNL, and assessee has further got work done from various to whom the commission earned by assessee has been shared. Therefore, on that amount assessee failed to deduct TDS and AO was correct in making addition in view of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Relevant portion of the assessment order was read also by ld. D/R. 4. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel of the assessee placed reliance on the order of ld. CIT (A). Further, the relation between principal BSNL and assessee was explained and it was submitted that it is not disputed that assessee is an agent of BSNL. BSNL has paid commission @ 5% and on which TDS has been deducted by BSNL and there is no dispute. It is further submitted that there were two options left with the assessee - (1) that assessee may have rendered the services directly to the BSNL or (2) may have engaged persons from the market to complete the work assigned by BSNL. If assessee wants to do the wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee had employed a very large number of employees, which appeared to be very high as compared to the number of employees, normally required in view of the nature of assessee's business. The expenditure claimed on salary was unreasonably high and the genuineness of the same and employment of such large number of employees was also doubtful, in the absence of any independent clinching evidence. 8. Therefore, the AO proposed to reject the books of account u/s 145(3) of the I.T. Act. In response, the assessee filed reply vide letter dated 14/12/2009. However, the AO did not find that reply acceptable and hence, the AO rejected the assessee's books of account. 9. Further, as per discussion contained in paras 4.1 to 4.4 of the assessment order, the AO noted that on an average, the assessee had allowed a commission of 4% to the retailers. The AO further noted that, however, as per the franchiseeship agreement dated 21/03/2005 filed by the assessee, a commission of 3% only was to be passed on by the franchisee (the assessee) to the retailers, whereas the assessee had passed on the commission at about 4% to the retailers, which tantamounted to suppression of sales by 1%. Accordingly,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I have also carefully gone through the details / documents filed by the Ld. AR in support of this ground of appeal. However, on perusal of the same, I find that there is no dispute regarding the fact that most of the sale of the recharge coupons etc. is made by the assessee in cash and also that the complete address / details of the retailers are not maintained by the assessee. In this respect, it is also noted that the appellant has made the sale of the recharge coupons etc. to the retailers at a price, which was lower than the MRP thereof, after passing on a part of his commission to the retailers. However, appellant's claim in that regard relating to the benefit given to the retailers, as to how much of his commission was actually passed on to the retailers, is not fully verifiable in the absence of complete details/addresses of the retailers. Therefore, the complete verification of the entire sales made by the assessee, and particularly of the commission /discount allowed by the assessee to the retailers, is not possible. Further, I find that there is also no dispute regarding the fact that the appellant was not maintaining vouchers of misc. expenses, and according to appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....006 to 12/11/2006 and for the period 13/11/2006 to 31/03/2007. From the details filed, it is noted that the appellant had made sales of Rs. 16,86,91,274/-, during the period from 01/04/2006 to 12/11/2006, with respect to which a minimum commission of 3% was necessarily to be allowed t the retailers, and had made sales of Rs. 12,79,96,239/-, during the period from 13/11/2006 to 31/03/2007, wits respect to which a minimum commission of 5% was necessarily to be allowed to the retailers. Further, it is noted that therefore, even if the appellant had allowed only the minimum commission of 3% and 5%, as the case may be, the average commission payment by the appellant to the retailers would work out to 3.86% of the entire sales for the F.Y. 2006-07. However, as mentioned before, it is not verifiable from the records as to whether the appellant passed on any benefit, over and above the aforementioned minimum commission, to the retailers, it is held that it will be reasonable to presume that the appellant had passed on the minimum commission to the retailers (as was required to be necessarily passed on to the retailers as per the agreement between the assessee and BSNL). Accordingly, it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income from franchiseeship of BSNL from his three branches located at Jaisalmer, Sanganer (Jaipur) and Jodhapur . The Ao has analyzed the comparative GP and NP rates of the said three branches as noted in para 5.1 of the assessment order From that analysis, the noted that there was large difference between the GP rate. NP rate and indirect expenses of those branches On query, the assessee filed the reply vide letter dated 22.12.2009 which has been reproduced by the AO in para 5.2 of his order Further, the AO compared the case of the assessee with the case of another assessee i.e. M/s Sushil & Company of Sikar, which had declared better NP rate of 1.18% as compared to the NP rate of 0.72% declared by the assessee, and sought assesses expiation in that regard. The assessee's reply has been noted by the AO in para 5.3 of the assessment order. However , the AO did not accept the aforementioned replies given by the assessee to the queries raised and the AO made the following observations contained in paras 5.4 and 5.5 of the assessment order i) The assessee had shown unreasonably high indirect expenses in respect of Jodhpur Branch at Rs. 26,01,981/- as compared to the indirect expense....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the relevant records, I find that the Ld. AO has made the impugned disallowance on the basis of his general observations. In this regard, it is noted that the Ld. AO has made a comparative analysis of the GP and NP rates and the NP / GP ratio of the appellant's three branches at Jodhpur, Jaipur and Jaisalmer and found variations therein. Further, Ld. AO has compared the NP rates and some of the expenses claimed in the P&L A/c, as declared by the assessee and M/s Sushil & Company, Sikar (comparable case) and found that the assessee had declared lower NP rate as compared to the NP rate declared by M/s Sushil & Company and also that some of the expenses claimed in the P&L Account by the assessee were comparatively higher than the corresponding figures of those expenses shown by M/s Sushil & Company. However, it is observed that the Ld. AO has not made any enquiry in respect of any of the aforementioned expenses claimed by the assessee and also that Ld. AO has not brought any material on record to indicate that the said expenses claimed were false or not genuine. In this connection, it is also noticed that the appellant had furnished explanations regarding the variations in the GP ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tronic goods, such as, TV, Fridge, Wishing Machines, Mobile Handsets etc., there was great competition in the market and the margins were very low. It was also pointed out that due to that fact and on account of loss, some old concerns of Sikar discontinued their business, such as M/s Kalpana Electronics and M/s K.B. Electronics, Station Road, Sikar. However, the AC did not fird that explanation acceptable. The AO, as per discussion contained in paras 6.3 to 6.5 of the assessment order, was of the view that the trading loss declared by the assessee was not genuine. In this regard, the AC made a comparative analysis of the GP and NP rates declared by the assessee from A.Y. 2002-03 to 2007-08, and observed that till the A.Y.2002-03, when the assessee had only electronics/electricals business, the assessee had declared normal GP & NP from that business. However, thereafter, when the assessee had commission receipts from BSNL franchiseeship, the electronics I electricals business started resulting into reduced GP and Net Loss. Therefore, the AO came to the conclusion that there being windfall type of profit from BSNL franchiseeship commission, the assessee had resorted to all sorts of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submissions, the ld. CIT (A) allowed this issue in favour of the assessee giving his finding in para 5.3 at pages 24 and 25 which are as under :- "5.3. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions of Ld. AR. However, on perusal of the relevant material available on records, I find that the Ld. AO has made the impugned addition merely on the ground that the GP rate and NP rates were decreasing in the appellant's business of electronics and electricals at Sikar, from A.Y. 2003-04 to A.Y. 2007-08 and further on the basis of the suspicion that, therefore, the assessee was declaring loss from his well established business of electronics I electricals, to set off that loss against the windfall type of profit from BSNL franchiseeship commission, with a view to reduce his tax liability. In this regard, the AC has also compared the NP rate of 1.8% declared by M/s Sushil Sales Corporation of Sikar (comparable case), as against the loss of Rs. 15,21,3011- declared by the assessee. However, I find that Ld. AO has neither pointed out books of account maintained by the assessee, in respect of his electronics/electricals business at Sikar, nor brought any material/evidence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after deducting the BSNL commission received of Rs. 1,83,67,798/- The AO also observed that the assessee passed on a fixed part of that commission received by him to his retailers, but again, the assessee did not account for the paid commission (to the retailers) separately and, instead, accounted the sales (to the retailers) at reduced rates, without specifically, mentioning the commission amount in each sales voucher. Therefore, the AO required the assessee to file payee-wise details of commission paid to the retailers. However, the assessee; vide letter dated 14/12/2009, stated that his trade practice was to sell the goods below net rates and, therefore, he had not paid any commission or discount on BSNL coupon product to the retailers and also that, hence, no TDS was deducted. The assessee also did not file the required details, on the plea that the assessee had not allowed or paid any commission or discount and hence, provisions of TDS were not applicable. However, the AO was of the view, as per the following discussion contained in para 7.2 of the assessment order, that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194H of the Act on the commission or brokerage allowed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S. 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act. However, taking note of the fact that the AO had already disallowed an amount of Rs. 30,87,080/-, treating the said amount of commission/ brokerage as not genuine (as per para 4.4 of the assessment order), the AO restricted the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I.T. Act to Rs. 91,83,554/- (Rs.1,22,70,634 - Rs. 30,87,080/-), which is in dispute in this ground of appeal. 19. Detailed submissions were filed before the ld. CIT (A) which has been tabulated in the order of ld. CIT (A) in para 6.2 at pages 27 to32. The explanation submitted by ld. A/R is detailed one and explanatory. Therefore, it will be useful to reproduce here also which are as under :- " "The learned AO has erred in making addition of Rs. 91,83,554/- in the income of the assessee under section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act alleging that the assessee was defaulter of not making TDS on payment of commission to retailers under section 194H of Income Tax Act. In this regard the following is submitted: 1. The learned AO has made this addition on his understanding of the fact that the assessee was acting as agent of BSNL as he was in receipt of commission from the same. Similarly, the ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that it is the nature of transaction which is determinative factor and not the nomenclature. Since, in the present case, the assessee purchased the goods from the BSNL, therefore, discount given by them under the nomenclature of 'commission' will not make the assessee an agent of BSNL. In support of the above, we are also enclosing herewith the copies of agreement entered into between the assessee and BSNL dated 21/03/2005 (which was operative in the period 01/04/2006 to 12/11/2006) and agreement dated 13/11/2006 (which was operative for the period 13/11/2006 to 31/03/2007). Reading of various clauses of this agreement further clears that the assessee was making direct purchase of goods from BSNL and amount of discount was passed on to him from BSNL in the nomenclature of commission. In these agreements, the assessee has been referred to as franchisee which means he was not an agent of BSNL. A franchisee is businessman in his own right. The sale of goods by BSNL to assessee was on principal to principal basis. We are also discussing the various clauses of the agreements to know as to what was the relationship between BSNL and the assessee: Clause 8.1:- As per this cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3,67,798/- has been reduced from the figure of purchases for the year. This fact was acknowledged by the learned AO and he has reported this fact in the assessment order para 7.1. 6. Since BSNL was making payment to the assessee under the nomenclature of "Commission" and was making TDS thereon, there was no option left with the assessee to account for the same under the same head of account, so that the books of BSNL and assessee could tally. However, this fact alone is not sufficient to prove that the assessee was an agent of BSNL. 7. It is further submitted that w.e.f. 31/5/2008, BSNL has itself changed the nomenclature of this payment from 'commission' to discount and has also stopped deduction of TDS on this payment. We are enclosing herewith a letter dated 01/10/2009 received from BSNL stating that this office is giving discount (named as commission upto 31/05/2008, thereafter the nomenclature has changed from commission to discount by entering into an agreement on principal to, principal basis to clarify the nature of transaction) out of purchase price. After purchase the goods become property of the franchisee and that they can deal with the same in any way they like.'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the stamp papers from Government on payment of price less discount on principal to principal basis and there is no contract of agency at any point of time - Liability of the stamp vendor to pay the price less discount is not dependent or contingent upon sale of stamp paper by the vendor - Stringency of the restrictions claimed in the Gujarat Stamps Supply & Sales Rules is not account of the fact that the ownership over the stamp papers is not transferred to the licensed vendors on delivery but it is on account of the sensitive nature of the stamp papers 4) AHMEDABAD STAMP VENDORS ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA 257 ITR 202 (Guj) Deduction of Tax at Source - Commission of Brokerage - Meaning of Commission of Brokerage - Element of agency essential- Difference between Agency and Sale - Stamp Vendors - Purchase of Stamp Papers at Discount - Restriction on sale and provision in Gujarat Stamps Supply and Sales Rules, 1987, for surrender of Stamp Papers to Government - Provision would not render stamp Vendors Agents - Transaction amount to sale-Discount on sale of stamp paper does not attract section 194H - Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 194H The learned AO has relied upon the decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lationship between the assessee and the retailers was not that of principal and agents and they were dealing on principal to principal basis, in view of following facts: a) There was no oral or written agreement between assessee and retailers. b) The assessee had no control over conduct of business by the retailers. c) The property in goods immediately passed on to retailers on sale of goods. d) The assessee sold goods net of discounts and no amount has been paid by the assessee to retailers as 'commission'. 6. Therefore it is submitted that whatever portion of commission/discount as received by the assessee from BSNL was passed on to the retailers by the assessee was only in the nature of up front discount on which there was no liability of TDS to be made under section 194H of Income Tax Act. 7. Reliance is placed on two decisions of ITAT in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. and two decisions of Gujarat High Court, mentioned supra, which will also govern the payment of discount from Franchisee to retailers. 8. The assessee has also obtained confirmation letters from some of the retailers to whom the assessee made sale of BSNL products. (Copy enclosed) In these....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t he has purchased SIM Card and Recharge Coupon from BSNL against full payment of price of the same to BSNL. In this way it can not be termed that the assessee is an Agent of BSNL. However, there is an agency agreement with BSNL and in this agreement it has been referred to as Franchisee, it means that assessee is not an Agent of BSNL. By purchasing SIM Card and Recharge Coupon, the assessee is doing service on behalf of the BSNL as Franchisee. As Franchisee the assessee is doing marketing and distribution of BSNL Telecom Service and as per agreement the BSNL deducting tax at source @ 5.61% and TDS certificate has been issued in Form No. 16A. There is no dispute in these facts. Now the assessee is selling these SIM Card and Recharge Coupons by doing marketing and distribution of BSNL Telecom Services. The assessee is doing this business by engaging some persons in the market and have parted with some share of commission earned by him from BSNL. Parting of the commission, the AO has treated that assessee has engaged his Agents and, therefore, is liable to deduct tax in view of provisions of section 194H. In fact, the assessee has not engaged any distributor by appointing agents but ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed SIM Card and Discount Coupons and they have become the property of the assessee as assessee is liable for damage/loss of SIM Card and Discount coupons. Therefore, also it cannot be said that assessee was an agent and assessee has engaged further sub agents. All these facts have been considered by ld. CIT (A) and thereafter he has given his findings which are recorded in para 6.3 at pages 32 to 33, are also reproduced here as under :- " 6.3. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions of Ld. AR. On perusal of the relevant records, find that the nature of the relationship between the BSNL and the appellant assessee (franchisee of BSNL) was different, as compared to the nature of the relationship between the assessee and his retailers In this regard, it is observed that the appellant was appointed a franchisee of the BSNL, as per the detailed terms and conditions of franchiseeship contained in the agreement dated 21/03/2005, entered into between the BSNL and the appellant, which was subsequently modified, vide another agreement dated 13/11/2006. Therefore, the appellant was obliged to fulfill and conditions of that agreement and, in a way, was under the supe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of Rs. 6,18,900/-, the facts in this regard are discussed in para 7.1 at page 34 of order of ld. CIT (A) are as under :- " 7.1. On perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that the impugned disallowance has been made by the Ld. AO as per discussion contained in para 7.4 of the assessment order. In this regard, it is observed that the AC noticed that the assessee had debited Rs. 4,84,372/- in the P&L Account of Jodhpur Branch, on account of scheme and discount paid, which was in the nature of commission/discount. However, the assessee explained that the relationship between the assessee and the receiving persons was that of seller and purchaser, and not that of Principal and Agent, hence, the provisions of S.194-H and 40(a)(ia) of the Act were not applicable to those payments. However, the explanation filed by the assessee was not found to be correct because the AO noticed from the return of income filed in ITR-4 by the assessee that in Col. 23 of Part A-P&L Account, of the ITR-4, the assessee had shown payment of Rs. 7,28,009/- as commission. Further, on going through the details of indirect expenses of various branches the AO found that the aforesaid amount of commission....