Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 857 - AT - Income TaxAllowability of commission paid - payment of commission on sales made to ‘sub-agent’ - Held that:- Since the AO accepted the existence of sub-agent of M/s. Surya Jyothi Spinning Mills Ltd., the payment to them on direct sales cannot be denied, as assessee is also receiving commission on direct sales. Moreover, if the sales are to the sub-agent itself, the discount/commission on those sales also cannot be denied. So long as the existence of sub-agent is proved, the commission on direct sales as well as indirect sales has to be allowed. It is noticed that the commission was received as a percentage of sales, whereas the commission to sub-agent was paid on tonnage basis. The rate at which it was paid was not in dispute. AO has not made out a case of excess payment as commission. Since the existence of subagent is proved and AO himself allowed the commission partly, it is of the opinion that the commission paid to M/s. Surya Jyothi Spinning Mills Ltd., both on third party sales as well as on own purchases has to be allowed. Coming to the payments claimed against Mr. Hanuman Das Karwa, HUF, the same is not proved. First of all, the agreement with Mr. Hanuman Das Karwa was not placed on record. The AO examined and recorded a statement and role of Mr. Hanuman Das Karwa is not forthcoming in sales made to sub-agent. It is also not understandable why Mr. Hanuman Das Karwa has to act as an agent for sales to ‘sub-agent’ M/s. Surya Jyothi Spinning Mills Ltd. As seen from the ledger account copy also, the commission was debited on the last day of the year and there are no payments during the year. This indicate that claim of commission to Mr. Hanuman Das Karwa on sales to M/s. Surya Jyothi Spinning Mills Ltd., is not genuine. Assessee failed to justify the claim before authorities. I am of the opinion that the AO/CIT(A) is correct in disallowing the amount. To that extent, the claim of payment of commission on sales made to ‘sub-agent’ itself stated to have been done through Mr. Hanuman Das Karwa, HUF is not genuine on the facts of the case. The grounds to that extent are rejected.
|