RAMESH HITECHK PUMPS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

आदेश /O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Coimbatore in ITA No. 135/15-16 dated 31.03.2017

for the assessment year 2012-13.

:-2-: ITA No. 1096/Mds/2017

business of manufacture of sale of pumps. In the assessment made for the

assessment year 2012-13, the assessee claimed Rs. 18,30,223/- as turnover

discount . It explained to the AO that due to hectic competition for pumps in

Andhra Pradesh and in order to encourage sales, dealers were given

turnover discount. In this regard,before the financial year, letters were sent

to the dealers specified with the discount pattern and at the end of the year

on the basis of turnover achieved by them, discount is given as per the

discount pattern. The assessee has furnished the discount details also. The

AO after considering the assessee’s explanation held that turnover

discount is paid in the form of the commission, when a particular turnover is

achieved which is to avoid TDS. The sales commission is camouflaged under

the nomenclature of “turnover discount”. Since, the assessee has not

deducted tax on these payments as required u/s. 194H, he did not allow the

expenditure claimed at Rs. 18,30,223/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an

appeal before the CIT(A).

from the sales but were paid as commission when a particular turnover is

achieved, the impugned sum represents sales commission. Since the assessee

has not deducted tax on these payments as required u/s. 194H , he has

upheld the disallowance. Aggrieved, the assessee filed this appeal pleading

:-3-: ITA No. 1096/Mds/2017

that the CIT(A) erred in not properly considering the objections raised in the

grounds of appeal before him to the disallowance viz., Rs. 18,30,223/- was

Turnover Discount and not “Commission” and the requirement of deduction of

tax at source under section 194H does not apply and consequently, section

40(a)(ia) is not attracted etc.

in the normal course of buying and selling between the dealer and the

assessee on a principle to principle basis. The authorities erred in not seeing

that the turnover discount is allowed to dealers on achieving a certain

turnover and by way of abatement against the catalogue price and hence the

trade discount is distinct from the commission as envisaged under the Act.

Both the AO and the CIT(A) failed to see that even on a plain reading of the

definition of “Commission” in Explanation (i) below section 194H, it will be

evident that the recipient of payment contemplated is the third party

intermediary who renders service in the course of buying and selling of goods.

In the assessee’s case, the assessee is selling these pumps as a principle and

the dealers are also selling them as a principle. He invited our attention to

the page no 7 of the paper book and submitted that, the assessee was

offering turnover discount every year to the dealers based on the turnover

achieved by them in the following discount structure:

1 lakh to 6 lakhs 1% 6 lakhs to 10 lakhs 2%

:-4-: ITA No. 1096/Mds/2017

10 lakhs to 15 lakhs 3% 15 lakhs to 25 lakhs 4% 25 lakhs to 30 lakhs 4.5% Above 30 lakhs 5%

Inviting our attention to the paper book pane nos. 1 to 6 , he pointed out the

list prices on various products dealt by the assessee and submitted that the

dealers who achieved the turnover is given a turnover discount as per the

turnover structure at the year end, which is credited to the respective ledger

account. Since, the discount is based upon the turnover achieved, the

turnover achieved by them is known only at the year end and accordingly, the

turnover discount is credited in the year end in their respective accounts.

Thus, the company is providing turnover discount to major dealers on

principle to principle basis. The AO as well as the CIT(A) have wrongly

considered it as commission falling u/s. 194H. The AR submitted that

liability u/s. 194H can arise only when any payment; is received or

receivable, directly or indirectly by a person acting on behalf of another

person;

a) For services rendered (not being professional services), or

b) For any services in the course of buying or selling of goods or

c) In relation to any transaction relating to any asset, valuable or

article or thing, not being securities.

:-5-: ITA No. 1096/Mds/2017

Therefore, the element of agency must be present in all services or

transactions in order to fall within the expression “commission or brokerage”

and submitted that the turnover discount is a discount given by the

wholesaler or manufacturer for encouraging bulk purchase of their products

and it has been extended to dealers/ distributors on principle to principle

basis and there is no pre-determined agreement as agent between the

dealers and the assessee. The payment of discount made to

dealer/distributor is on achieving certain turnover, not on the basis of

services. Since, there is no service or agency agreement, the provisions of

section 194H will not attract for the payment towards turnover discount

extended to dealers.In this regard, the AR relied on the following decisions:

1) CIT vs Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association [(2012) 348 ITR 378

(SC)]

2) CIT vsIntervet India P. Ltd [(2014) 364 ITR 238 (Bom)]

3) CIT vs Jai Drinks P. Ltd [(2011) 336 ITR 383 (Delhi)]

4) CIT vs United Breweries Ltd [(2016) 387 ITR 150 (T&AP)]. Per

contra, the DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

assessee as a manufacturer has given the turnover discount for

encouraging bulk purchases and it has been made to the dealers/

distributors on principle to principle basis and there is no pre-determined

:-6-: ITA No. 1096/Mds/2017

agreement as agent between the assessee and the dealers/ distributors. The

payment of discount made to the dealer/ distributor on achieving certain

turnover and not on the basis of services. We have gone through the ratios

of the decisions relied on by the AR. The head notes of the decisions in CIT

vsIntervet India P. Ltd., [(2014) 364 ITR 238 (Bom)] is extracted as under:

“ Business expenditure – disallowance-payments on which tax deductible at source – commission-sales promotion scheme-incentive offered on case to case basis to stockists/dealers/agents – relationship between assessee and distributors/stockists was that of principal to principal – distributors/stockists not acting on behalf of assessee-not a commission payment within meaning of clause (i) or explanation below section 194H – no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia) –Income Tax Act, 1961, ss. 40(a)(ia), 194H.”

The head notes of the decision in CIT vs Jai Drinks P. Ltd [(2011) 336 ITR 383

(Delhi)] is extracted as under:

“ Deduction of tax at source-commission-agreement for distribution of products manufactured by assessee – distributor purchasing products at pre- determined price for sale within specified area- assessee and distributor collecting and paying sales tax separately – payment of incentive to distributor- not commission – tax not deductible at source on such payment- Income Tax Act, 1961, s. 194H.”

distributors/dealers is that of principal to principal basis. Since, there is no

service or agency agreement, the provisions of section 194H will not attract,

as per the above ratios, on the payment made towards turnover discount

:-7-: ITA No. 1096/Mds/2017

extended to the dealers/ distributors. Hence, the impugned addition is

untenable, it is deleted and the assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 22nd day of November, 2017 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (एसजयरामन) (N.R.S. GANESAN) (S. JAYARAMAN) !या�यकसद"य/Judicial Member लेखासद"य/Accountant Member

चे�नई/Chennai, 0दनांक/Dated: 22nd November, 2017 JPV आदेशक&)�त1ल2पअ3े2षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ%/Appellant 2. )*यथ%/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु4त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयु4त/CIT 5. 2वभागीय)�त�न�ध/DR 6. गाड7फाईल/GF