Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD
आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 15.07.2022, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 12.12.2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred in holding that the assessment has been rightly opened u/s.147 and issue of Notice u/s.148 was proper. Prayed that there is change of opinion also, initiation of proceedings u/s.147 is not as per law and the facts, the Assessment Order be annulled. 2. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.6,57,620/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer out of commission paid to some parties, including unrelated parties at Rs.6,57,620/-, purely under presumption and surmises. Prayed that commission has been paid for the work done by parties considering efforts made, the disallowance of Rs.6,57,620/- kindly be deleted.”
Succinctly stated, the assessee who is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of tractors, two wheel trailors, plough and other
3 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
agriculture equipments had e-filed his return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 26.09.2011, declaring an income of Rs.12,17,700/-. Original assessment was thereafter framed by the A.O u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 31.01.2014, determining the income of the assessee at Rs.18,72,500/-.
On the basis of information collected/received by the A.O, viz. (i) that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.39,39,890/- in his savings bank account with State Bank of India, which, however, was not disclosed by him in his balance sheet; and (ii) that though the assessee had paid commission of Rs.19,38,900/- to his family members, however, the said information did not find place in Column 18 of Form 3CD of the audit report of his chartered accountant, the A.O holding a conviction that the income of the assessee aggregating to Rs.58,78,790/- had escaped assessment, thus, reopened his case u/s.147 of the Act.
During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O found favour with the explanation of the assessee as regards the source of cash deposits of Rs.39,39,890/-(supra) in his bank account with State Bank of India and did not draw any adverse inferences on the said issue. Apropos, the commission of Rs.19,38,900/- that was paid by the assessee to persons specified u/s.40A(2)(b) of the Act, it
4 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
was observed by the A.O that no information as regards such payments was disclosed in Column 18 of Form 3CD of the auditor’s report. On being queried about the details of the commission payments of Rs.19,38,900/- the assessee furnished details as regards the same as under:
S. Commission paid to Relation to Commission Tractors Average No. assessee sold Rate of Commission 1. Harvansh Gavel Son 3,63,200/- 24 15,133/- 2. Vijay Gavel Son 4,39,300/- 30 14,643/- 3. Tikeshwar Gavel Brother’s 3,42,700/- 22 15,577/- son 4. Dev Singh Gavel Brother 4,23,200/- 27 15,674/- 5. Yashwant Gavel Brother 3,70,500/- 27 13,722/-
On perusal of the records, the A.O observed certain infirmities as regards the payment of commission by the assessee to his related parties, viz. (i) though the assessee had sold tractors of different price and power with price ranging from Rs.3 lac to Rs.6 lac, however, the commission of Rs.15,000/- was given on sale of every tractor; (ii) that there was no contractual arrangement for payment of commission; (iii) that there was no policy of the tractor company for payment of commission and the same was paid by the assessee out of the profit margin of the concern; (iv) that though the assessee had maintained
5 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
customer wise sales made by the specified parties but their corresponding commission was not debited in the books of account on the date of sale and was done only on the last day of the financial year. On a perusal of the commission payments made by the assessee to the aforementioned related parties in the immediately preceding year i.e. FY 2009-10, it was observed by the A.O that though the said expenditure had comparatively increased from Rs.11,64,800/- to Rs.19,38,900/- i.e. increased by 66.45%, but the sale of tractors through such persons had increased marginally from 118 to 130 i.e. increased only by 10.16%.
On being queried about the substantial increase in the payment of commission expenditure to the specified persons in the backdrop of negligible increase in sales of tractors, it was stated by the assessee that unlike the preceding year, in which, tractors were sold to customers through salesmen/parties with lot of help and support from the tractor company and from the tractor dealer, during the year under consideration the salesmen/parties were self sufficient and much less efforts and follow up was required from the dealer and the tractor company. The A.O was, however, not persuaded to subscribe to the aforesaid unsubstantiated claim of the assessee. Observing that though the payment of commission to facilitate increase in the sales was though allowable as an
6 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
expenditure considering the legitimate needs of the business, the A.O was of the view that such increase in payment of commission ought to have a positive co-relation with the sales of tractors for which the same was paid. Also, the A.O was of the view that incurring of similar expenditure by another dealer could not be adopted as a benchmark, for the reason that each case was different from other. As such, the A.O was of the view that the amount of commission paid by the assessee to the related parties was not commensurate with the increase in his sales. It was further observed by the A.O that as the assessee was in the tax slab of 30% while for the commission paid to related parties would fall within 10% tax slab, therefore, the payment by the assessee of substantial amount of commission to them was clearly a colorable transaction in order to suppress his real income. Holding a conviction that there could not be a benchmark for gauging the allowability of the commission paid by the assessee, the A.O was however of the view that the amount of commission that was paid by the assessee in the preceding years could safely be reasonably adopted keeping in view the services rendered. Accordingly, the A.O was of the view that considering 10.16% increase in sales during the year as in comparison to that of the immediately preceding year, the increase in payment of commission to the related parties could safely be restricted to 10% as against that made in the immediately
7 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
preceding year. Resultantly, the A.O restricted the assessee’s claim for commission payment to the related parties to Rs.12,81,280/- [Rs.11.64,800/- (+) 10% of Rs.11,64,800/-] and disallowed an amount of commission of Rs.6,57,620/- [Rs.19,38,900/- (-) Rs.12,81,280/-] u/s.40A(2)(a) of the Act.
Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success.
The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before me.
I have heard the ld. authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the ld. A.R to drive home his contentions.
At the very outset of hearing of the appeal the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee assailed the validity of jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O u/s.147 of the Act, for the reason that the impugned proceedings had been initiated on the basis of mere a “change of opinion” on the same set of facts as were available before the A.O while framing the original assessment vide
8 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
order passed u/s.143(3), dated 31.01.2014. It was the claim of the Ld. AR that as the issue of commission expenditure had been deliberated upon by the A.O while framing of the original assessment, therefore, in the absence of any new facts the successor A.O could have not reopened the concluded assessment of the assessee u/s. 147 of the Act. In support of his aforesaid contention, the Ld. AR had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) and the order of the ITAT, Mumbai, “D” Bench in the case of Medley Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2020) 118 Taxman.com. 44. On a specific query by the Bench that on what basis it was being claimed that the assessee’s claim for deduction of commission expenditure had been looked into by the A.O while framing original assessment u/s.143(3) dated 31.01.2014, the Ld. AR took me through the original assessment order, Page 17-19 of APB. The Ld. AR referred to Para 5 of the aforesaid original assessment order, wherein it was stated by the A.O that the assessee’s claim for expenses were test checked vis-à-vis bills/vouchers of expenses as were produced a/w. books of account for the year under consideration. Also, my attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to the copy of the order of the ITAT, “SMC” Bench, wherein the Tribunal while restoring the issue as regards the assessee’s claim for salary paid to the related parties had also taken cognizance of the
9 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
fact that in the preceding years sales commission paid to such related parties was accepted by the department. On the basis of aforesaid facts, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that as the assessee’s claim for deduction of commission expenses had been looked into and accepted by the A.O while framing the original assessment u/s.143(3) dated 31.01.2014, therefore, reopening of such concluded assessment on the basis of a mere “change of opinion” clearly militated against the settled position of law as had been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra).
On merits, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that both the lower authorities had erred in making/sustaining the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction of commission paid to related parties u/s.40A(2)(a) of the Act. Elaborating on his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the A.O had most arbitrarily dispensed with the statutory requirement of referring to the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the services which were rendered by the aforementioned parties, and had only on a presumptive basis partly disallowed the claim for deduction of commission paid to them by alleging without any basis that the same were excessive and unreasonable. It was averred by the Ld. AR that Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act contemplates that it is only where having regard to the FMV
10 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
of the services/facilities for which, payment is made; or the legitimate needs of the business or profession of the assessee; or the benefit derived by or accruing to him therefrom, in the opinion of the A.O is excessive or unreasonable, then only to the said extent the expenditure as is found to be unreasonable/excessive is to be disallowed. In support of his aforesaid contention the Ld. AR had relied on the details of sales made and commission paid, Page 1-3 of APB. Accordingly, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that as the A.O had triggered the provision of Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act, and disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of commission paid to related/specified parties, without placing on record any material which would reveal that the said expenditure was either excessive or unreasonable, therefore, the disallowance so made could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down.
Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
I have given a thoughtful consideration to the issues involved in the present appeal, viz. (i) validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s.147 of the Act; and (ii) sustainability of the part disallowance of commission expenditure made by the A.O u/s.40A(2)(a) of the Act.
11 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
As the Ld. AR has assailed the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for reopening of the concluded assessment of the assessee u/s.147 of the Act, therefore, I shall first deal with the same.
Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessment in the case of the assessee was originally framed by the A.O u/s.143(3), dated 31.01.2014. The concluded assessment of the assessee was thereafter reopened u/s.147 of the Act, for the reasons viz. (i) that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.39,39,890/- in his saving bank account with State Bank of India, which, however, were not disclosed by him in his balance sheet; and (ii) that though the assessee had paid commission of Rs.19,38,900/- to his family members, however, the said information did not find place in Column 18 of the audit report of the chartered accountant in Form 3CD. Although the A.O in the course of reassessment proceedings accepted the claim of the assessee as regards the source of the cash deposits of Rs.39,39,890/-(supra), but had made part disallowance of the assesse’s claim for deduction of commission expenditure incurred in context of related parties of Rs.6,54,852/-(supra). In so far the claim of the Ld. AR that the A.O had wrongly assumed jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act by taking recourse to a mere “change of opinion” based on the same set of facts as were available before his
12 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
predecessor in the course of original assessment proceedings, I am unable to concur with the same. As the assessee’s claim for deduction of commission paid to parties specified u/s.40A(2)(b) of the Act of Rs.19,38,900/-, was neither reported by the auditor in Column 18 of his audit report in Form 3CD, nor the said claim for deduction was looked into by the A.O while framing of the original assessment, therefore, the claim of the Ld. AR that the concluded assessment of the assesee had been reopened u/s.147 of the Act on the basis of a mere “change of opinion” does not merit acceptance. Undeniably, the concept of “change of opinion” would come into play only where there is a formation of opinion by the A.O in the course of the original assessment. As is discernible from the records the A.O had on no occasion in the course of the original assessment proceedings ever raised any query much the less looked into the maintainability of the assessee’s claim for deduction of commission expenditure under consideration. Although, I concur with the claim of the Ld. AR that even if in the course of the original assessment proceedings the A.O would have queried on the issue but not made any reference of the same in the assessment order, the formation of opinion of the A.O on the said aspect cannot be ruled out. However, in the present case neither anything is discernible from the record nor brought to my notice by the Ld. AR which would reveal that the issue as regards the
13 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
assessee’s claim for deduction of commission paid to related/specified parties was ever adverted to by the A.O in the course of the original assessment proceedings. Apropos, the claim of the Ld. AR that as the A.O while framing the original assessment u/s.143(3) dated 31.01.2014 had test checked the expenses vis-à-vis bills/vouchers in support thereof, thus, it can safely be inferred that the assessee’s claim for deduction of commission payment to related/specified parties was also verified and accepted by him, in my considered view does not merit acceptance. As nothing is available on record which would reveal that the A.O while framing the original assessment u/s.143(3) dated 31.01.2014 had queried about the commission expendiure in question, therefore, the claim of the Ld. AR that the concluded assessment of the assessee had been reopened on the basis of a simplicitor “change of opinion”, does not merit acceptance.
Adverting to the merits of the case, I find that it is the claim of the Ld. AR that as the A.O without adopting any proper yardstick for gauging the reasonableness of the commission paid by the assessee to the related/specified parties, had most arbitrarily and on flimsy basis carried out a part disallowance of the same u/s.40A(2)(a) of the Act, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be vacated. Before proceeding any further, I deem it fit to cull out the
14 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
provisions of Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act ( relevant extract), as under :-
“(2)(a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person referred to in clause (b) of this sub-section, and the Assessing Officer is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities for which the payment is made or the legitimate needs of the business or profession of the assessee or the benefit derived by or accruing to him therefrom, so much of the expenditure as is so considered by him to be excessive or unreasonable shall not be allowed as a deduction.”
On a perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision, I find that the same contemplates that where the assessee’s claim for deduction of any expenditure in context of specified/related party, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer is excessive or unreasonable, then having regard to the fair market value of the goods or services or facilities for which the payment is made; or the legitimate needs of the business or profession of the assessee; or the benefit derived by or accruing to him therefrom, so much of the expenditure as is so considered by him to be excessive or unreasonable shall not be allowed as a deduction. In sum and substance, the excessiveness or unreasonableness of the assessee’s claim for deduction of expenditure incurred in respect of related/specified parties is to be vetted in the backdrop of the FMV of the goods or services or facilities for which payment had been made; or considering legitimate needs of
15 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
the business of the assessee; or benefit derived by; or accruing to the assessee therefrom.
On a careful perusal of the assessment order, it transpires that the A.O was not inspired with the authenticity of the commission payments made by the assessee to his related parties, for the reasons, viz. (i) though the assessee had sold tractors of different prices and power with price ranging from Rs.3 lac to Rs.6 lac, however, the commission of Rs.15,000/- was given on sale of every tractor; (ii) that there was no contractual arrangement for payment of commission; (iii) that there was no policy of the tractor company for payment of commission and the same was paid by the assessee out of the profit margin of the concern; and (iv) that though the assessee had maintained customer wise sales made by related parties, but the corresponding commission was not debited in the books of account on the date of sale and was done only on the last day of the financial year. On the basis of his aforesaid observations, the A.O was of the view that now when the sales of the tractors of the assessee concern during the year had increased marginally from 118 to 130 nos. i.e. by 10.16%, therefore, there appeared to be no reasonable basis to explain the substantial increase in the commission payments to the related/specified parties which had increased from Rs.11,64,800/- to Rs.19,38,900/- i.e. increased by 66.45%. Also, the A.O was of the
16 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
view that the unreasonableness of the aforesaid expenditure could not be arrived at on the basis of a comparable analysis of the commission payments which were made by similarly placed dealers, for the reason that as per him every case stood on a different footing. Backed by the aforesaid facts, the A.O was of the view that the benchmark for determining the reasonableness of the commission expenditure could safely be done in the backdrop of the commission that was paid by the assessee to the aforementioned persons in the immediately preceding year i.e. A.Y.2010-11. Observing that the sales of tractors during the year under consideration had witnessed an increase by 10.16% as in comparison to those of the immediately preceding year, the A.O, thus, adopted the same as the solitary basis and restricted the assessee’s claim for commission payment to related parties u/s.40A(2)(a) of the Act to Rs.12,81,280/- (out of Rs.19,38,900/-).
I have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue under consideration, i.e., sustainability of the part disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction of commission paid to related/specified parties u/s.40A(2)(a) of the Act, and is unable to persuade myself to subscribe to the very basis adopted by the lower authorities for disallowing/sustaining part disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.40A(2)(a) of the Act. As per Section
17 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
40A(2)(a) of the Act, it is only where the Assessing Officer is of opinion that expenditure incurred by the assessee in context of specified/related parties is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities for which the payment is made; or the legitimate needs of the business or profession of the assessee; or the benefit derived by or accruing to him therefrom, so much of the expenditure as is so considered by him to be excessive or unreasonable shall not be allowed as a deduction. Ostensibly, the very formation of the opinion by the A.O as regards excessiveness or unreasonableness of related/specified party expenditure is to be strictly made considering the FMV of the goods, services or facilities, in praesenti, for which the payment is made; or the legitimate needs of the business or profession of the assessee; or the benefit derived by or accruing to him therefrom. In my considered view, the A.O in the present case for purpose of benchmarking the reasonableness of the commission payments in question, had instead of looking into the FMV of the services which were rendered by the parties concerned; or the legitimate needs of the business of the assessee; or the benefit derived by; or accruing to the assessee therefrom, had chosen to restrict the allowability of the said expenditure to the extent of increase in his tractors sales during the year under consideration as against those for the immediately
18 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
preceding year. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered view that the basis so adopted by the A.O is absolutely fallacious. Although, there is no specific method prescribed under the Act for determining of FMV of goods, services or facilities as contemplated in Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act, but the same in my considered view would indispensably require carrying out a comparative analysis, in praesenti, of the payment made by the assessee to a specified/related party as against those made to an unrelated party during the year under consideration, or those made by a similarly placed assessee of the same trade line. Observation of the A.O that the amount of commission paid by other dealers could not be adopted as a benchmark for verifying the reasonableness of the commission paid by the assessee to the related parties under Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act, for the reason that each case as per him is different from other, in my considered view does not merit acceptance. As Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act clearly makes a reference to the FMV of the goods, services or facilities under consideration, therefore, the same in my considered view can only be arrived at on the basis of a comparative analysis, i.e., either an in-house comparison with payments to unrelated parties by the assessee for similar services, or a similar payment made by a third party operating in the trade line of the assessee. Considering the increase
19 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
in the sales of the assesee as in comparison to that of the preceding year as the solitary basis for benchmarking the reasonableness of the commission payment in question, I am of the considered view is nothing but a bad yardstick. I, say so, for the reason that though undeniably the commission was being paid by the assessee on the basis of the numbers of tractors sold, but the fact that there are number of other factors which have a material bearing on the quantum of commission expenditure cannot be ruled out. Our aforesaid view that the figure of a last year cannot safely be adopted as a benchmark for arriving at the reasonableness of an expenditure is supported by the order of ITAT, Bangalore in the case of S.K Engineering Vs. JCIT (2006) 103 ITD 97 (Bang.), wherein it was observed by the tribunal that merely for the reason that in the earlier year, the amount of commission paid by the assesee was 0.94%, therefore, the commission in excess thereof paid during the year was to be held as unreasonable for the purpose of Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act could not be approved. It was observed by the Tribunal that there may be several reasons as to why the assessee had paid lower commission in the initial years. Considering that what is required to be looked into u/s.40A(2)(a) of the Act is the reasonableness or excessiveness of the expenditure incurred as regards the related
20 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
parties, the tribunal had vacated the disallowance so made by the A.O by observing as under:
“3. In the present case, neither the AO nor learned CIT(A) has given any finding as to what is the excessive or unreasonable portion in the total commission payment. There is no finding on what is the legitimate need of the business. Both the authorities have gone by the principle that since in the earlier year the amount paid was 94%, the excess becomes unreasonable. In our opinion, this approach is not correct. There is no presumption that whatever was paid in earlier year only becomes reasonable and anything in excess becomes unreasonable. There may be several reasons that the assessee may pay lower commission in initial years. However, the finding, which is required, is what is the reasonableness or excessiveness for the year under appeal. Looking to the background of Shri Sharma and the nature of services rendered by him, we find that payment of commission at 2-1/2% cannot be considered as excessive or unreasonable. The partners of the firm are merely female partners whereas Shri S K Sharma is an influential person, who retired from M/s MICO Ltd. as Senior Vice President and is able to influence the said company, which is one of the top most customers of the appellant firm. We accordingly hold that no part of commission can be disallowed invoking the provision of Section 40A(2) of the Act.”
Also, a similar view had been taken by a division bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of NAT Steel Equipment (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 171 ITD 482 (Mum.) (to which undersigned was a party). It was observed by the Tribunal that legislature had in all its wisdom in order to avoid any arbitrary exercise of powers by the A.O by triggering Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act, had specifically provided that it is only where the A.O had formed an opinion that the expenditure incurred in respect of related party payment is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the FMV of the goods or services or
21 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
facilities for which payment was made by the assessee, or keeping in view the legitimate needs of the business or profession of the assessee, or the benefit derived by or accruing to him therefrom, that the disallowance of any expenditure incurred qua related/specified parties could be triggered by taking recourse to Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act. As the A.O in the said case had not uttered a word as to on what basis respective expenditure incurred by the assessee before him in context of related party services was found to be excessive or unreasonable, having regard to the FMV of the services for which the payment was made by the assessee or the legitimate needs of its business or the benefit derived by or accruing to the assessee therefrom, therefore, the tribunal had vacated the disallowance so made by the A.O.
Although, it is the observed by the A.O that an increase in the payment of commission ought to be supported by a corresponding increase in the sales of the products for which commission was being paid, but the fact that the assessee during the year under consideration could have agreed for payment of higher rate of commission per tractor sold through the aforesaid parties ; or that the assessee in the preceding year for whatever reason had paid lower commission per tractor sold, cannot be ruled out. As observed by me hereinabove, the A.O had failed to place on record any material which
22 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
would either reveal that the payment of commission by the assesee to the specified persons was found to be excessive or unreasonable either on being compared with that paid by him during the year under consideration to an unrelated party, or as against those paid by similarly placed third party dealers to commission agents rendering similar service. In sum and substance, the A.O had by no means established the unreasonableness or excessiveness of the commission paid by the assessee to the specified/related persons u/s.40A(2)(a) of the Act. Although the A.O had on the basis of certain other observations initially doubted the authenticity of the commission payments made by the assessee; but the very fact that he had partly thereafter disallowed the same u/s.40A(2)(a) of the Act, put to rest the aforesaid adverse inferences.
Be that as it may, in my considered view, as the A.O had failed to place on record any material which would irrefutably evidence the excessiveness or unreasonableness of the commission payments made by the assessee to specified/related parties, i.e. as against the FMV of the services which were rendered by them, or considering the legitimate needs of the business of the assessee, or the benefit derived by or accrued to the assessee; in context of the services rendered by such specified/related parties; and had taken recourse to a fallacious approach i.e. confining the increase of commission
23 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel Vs. ITO, Ward Janjgir Champa ITA No.154/RPR/2022
expenses to the extent of increase of sales as against those the preceding year, therefore, I am unable to concur with the consequential disallowance of Rs.6,57,620/- made by him u/s.40A(2)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, I set-aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and vacate the disallowance u/s.40A(2)(a) of the Act of Rs.6,57,620/- made by the A.O.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations.
Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 by placing the details on the notice board. Sd/- (रवीश सूद /RAVISH SOOD) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 29th December, 2022 ####SB आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(Appeals), Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Pr.CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, //True Copy // �नजी स�चव /Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur