Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 1032 - ITAT DELHIDeduction u/s 36(1)(ii) - deduction being bonus paid to employees - non-furnishing of fresh certificate from the Auditor - whether payment of bonus to employees cannot be equated with profits or dividend payable? - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is observed, though, the assessee contended that it is a mistake committed by the Auditor in mentioning the deduction claimed at column no. 16(a) of the Audit Report instead of clause 21(b). However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) declined to accept such claim of the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee failed to obtain a certificate from the Auditor acknowledging the mistake. However, before us the assessee has furnished certificate dated 15th February, 2019 issued by the same Auditor acknowledging the mistake in reporting the bonus paid to the employee. Of course, the assessee has filed the aforesaid document as additional evidence. As in case of M/s. Dalal Broacha Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (6) TMI 251 - ITAT, MUMBAI] after analyzing the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) has held that any sum paid to an employee as bonus or commission for services rendered has to be allowed as deduction as the reasonableness of the payment or adequacy of services rendered by the employee are not relevant factors in deciding the allowability of deduction. The Bench has held that disabling provision of section 36(1)(ii), which provides that “if the sum so paid is in lieu of profit or dividend” applies only to employees who are partners or shareholders. In the facts of the present appeal, there is no finding that the employees are either partners or shareholders of the assessee. That being the case, assessee’s claim has to be allowed. This ground is allowed. Addition u/s 68 - unsecured loan transactions - Admission of additional evidence denied by Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD THAT:- In case, the assessee for some reasons was unable to furnish the evidences to prove the loan transaction before the Assessing Officer and produced the requisite documents by way of additional evidence before Commissioner (Appeals), they should not have been rejected, merely because, AO in the remand report observed that such evidences should not be admitted. There can be various factors which could have prevented the assessee from furnishing the requisite documents before the AO. However, if the assessee files such documents before Commissioner (Appeals), they should not be rejected on technicalities, considering the fact that such evidences may have a crucial bearing in deciding the issue - We are inclined to restore this issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication,considering the evidences filed by the assessee.
|