SHRI AMIT ASHOKRAJ KAPOOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 212/AHD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 August 2018AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the payments were a matter of business expediency and the department cannot dictate how a businessman should manage expenses. Since payments were made through banking channels with TDS deducted, and the commission was linked to sales fetched, the assessee should get relief.

What were the facts?

The assessee paid commission to relatives, including his father and brother, for sales promotion and fetching sales. The Assessing Officer disallowed the commission payments, deeming them excessive and lacking genuineness. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether commission payments made to specified persons (relatives) were genuinely incurred for business purposes and not excessive, despite the relationship.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mittal, AR

PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad dated 20.11.2017 pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15 and following ground has been taken:

ITA No. 212/Ahd/2018 2 . A.Y. 2014-15 “That the authorities below have erred in law and facts by disallowing the commission paid to Shri Dwarkanath of Rs.433939/-, the payment in relation to commission expenses were by account payee cheque and through banking channel, Moreover proper TDS was also deducted by the assessee on the said payment”

2.

The facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of footwear. On perusal of Form 3CD it is found that the assessee has shown Nil payment to specified persons u/s. 40A(2)(b). The column no.23 was left blank marking Nil it means that he has not paid any amount under this section but the submission' made by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, it is found that he has paid commission to the following persons, specified u/s.40A(2)(b) of the Act: Name of the person Amount of commission Ashokraj Kapoor (father) Rs. 2,65,065/- Sumit Ashokraj Kapoor (brother) Rs. 2,65,065/- Dwarkanath (relative) Rs. 6,50,883/-

And thereafter assessee was asked to show cause that why the commission payment of above said amount should not be disallowed.

3.

In support of its contention, assessee stated that the payments are reasonable and moderate having regard to the fair market value of the services rendered by them. The assessee merely gave the confirmation of account Purpose and genuinity was not provided. As per last year record the assessee also gave salaries to these persons. No detail of salary paid was filed this year. It is established in earlier years that these persons have no technical qualification for the business of the assessee. It was further noticed that the in the current year, the assessee has paid equal commission to related persons. From this practice

ITA No. 212/Ahd/2018 3 . A.Y. 2014-15 of the assessee, it can be ascertained that there is no standard formula tor payment of commission. Even the assessee has failed to furnish proof of any contract with the above two persons. In view of the above it is very clear that there is no direct nexus between the commission paid to the specified persons and services rendered by them and also there is no-genuineness of the payments made. Hence, ld. A.O. made disallowance of Rs. 11,81,013/-.

4.

Against the said disallowance, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

We have gone through the relevant record and the impugned order. In this case, assessee made following payments on the basis of per pair of shoes and percentage-wise as well: Ashok Kapoor Rs, 5/- per pair = 5,30,135*5 =2,65,065/- Sumit Kapoor Rs. 5/- per pair = 5,30,135*5=2,65,065/- Dwarkanath @ 1.5 % of sales = 4,33,88,871*1.5=6,50,833/-

6.

Assessee’s contention is that Shri Ashok Kapoor and Sumit Kapoor got the sales promotion, therefore they were given Rs. 5 per pair of shoes whereas Dwarkanath was given commission of 1.5% of total sales as he could fetch sales of Rs. 4,33,88,871/- as compared to Shri Ashok Kappor and Sumit Kapoor. They could fetch sale of Rs. 5,30,135/- each.

7.

And in support of its contention, Assessee cited an order of the Delhi High Court in the matter of CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 wherein it has been held that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not

ITA No. 212/Ahd/2018 4 . A.Y. 2014-15 necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. No businessman can be compelled to maximize its profit. The income tax authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. The authorities must not look at the matter from their own view point but that of a prudent businessman.

8.

In our considered opinion, this is a case of business expediency and department cannot govern a businessman that how to run his business and how to manage his expenditure. In this case, commission has been given through banking channel and TDS was deducted and in case of Dwarkanath he could fetch sales therefore he was given commission @ 1.5% of the total sales. In our considered opinion, this is a fit case where appellant should get relief at our end.

9.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in Open Court on 13 - 08- 2018

Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 13 /08/2018 Rajesh Copy of the Order forwarded to:- 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 40A(2)(b)

All 1,172 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(2)(b) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →