PHARMACON,KOCHI vs. DCIT,NON CORP, CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is partnership firm engaged in the business of distribution of medical equipments specializing in stents and balloons used in cardiology. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 19.03.2018 admitting income of Rs. 99,12,240/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment Pharmacon was completed by the ACIT, Non Corp Circle 1(1), Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 1,43,88,990/-. While doing so, the AO disallowed the claim for deduction of commission payment of Rs. 44,76,750/- by observing that the commission expenses were booked on the last day of the accounting year, i.e. 31.03.2017 and the assessee had failed to substantiate the said expenditure.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. However, the appellant had filed written submission stating that the commission payment was made to various individuals, institutions and hospitals and tax was deducted at source. Therefore, no disallowance is required to be made.

On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR, placing reliance on the orders of the learned lower authorities submits that since the appellant had failed to substantiate the claim for deduction, the

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to allowability of commission payment of Rs. 44,76,750/-. The AO disallowed the same for the failure of the appellant to substantiate that the commission payment was made wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Even before the CIT(A), no evidence was filed by the appellant to prove that the commission payment was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Even if, the contention that commission payment was made for procurement of orders is accepted, the same is hit by Explanation (2) to provisions of section 37 of the Act, which is against public policy. The ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case IPCA Laboratories is squarely applicable to the fact of the present case.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.