TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r direct whether any TDS has been directed on such payments before the authorities below. Since the assessee has failed to furnish any information to establish that the payments were made towards the sales commission relating to promotion of sales and TDS the deduction on the sales commission thereof before the authorities below and in the present proceedings as well. Merely, the claim made by the assessee that the business of the Appellant is sales/purchase of liquor and all these employees are directly or indirectly related to sales of the company is not sufficient to hold that the findings of the authorities below are not tenable. In view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the observation and finding of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.2018 10.04.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu, in respect of the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, wherein the assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the addition on account of Sales Commission of Rs. 3,54,311/- and 3,39,083/- in respective assessment year by the Assessing Officer. Since, there is sole issue of commission payment on identical facts, both the appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common order for brevity. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 204/Asr/2019: 1. The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Labour, Computer Operator, Accountant and Peon being not directly relating to Sales Department. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the Sales Commission has been paid to the employees of the company to incentivize them and is part and parcel of their Salary package. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that all employees contribute to the progress of the company and are remunerated based on the sales of the company. 5. Any other ground which may be allowed to be brought at the time of hearing of appeal. It is prayed, that the addition of Rs. 3,39,083/- may please be deleted and appeal allowed. 4. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale incentive will also reduce accordingly. The sales incentive is part and parcel of their monthly pay package (list of employees given to Assessing Officer at the time of assessment is given at para 4 of the Assessment Order). The learned CIT (Appeals) has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer who has ruled that sales incentive given to employees like Estate Officer, Store Keeper, Cashier, Asstt. Store Keeper, G.D. Clerks, Accountant, Computer Operator, Coolie and Peon are not directly related to sales department. The findings of the authorities below are not tenable. The business of the Appellant is sales/purchase of liquor and all these employees are directly or indirectly related to sales of the company. The Secretary i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the appellant. In view of the above submissions, it is requested that disallowance of Rs. 3,54,311/- be allowed and appeal accepted. 5. The learned additional CIT DR supported the impugned order. He contended that what is claimed by the assessee relates to incentives paid to its employees and no way related to the sales commission. The learned CIT appeal was therefore justified in confirming the bogus expenditure claimed by the appellant assessee under the head sales commission. He prayed that order of the CIT appeal may be sustained. 6. We have heard the learned counsel and additional CIT DR, perused the material on record and case law cited at the bar. Admittedly, the appellant assessee has paid sales incentives to its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mritsar Bench in the case of Subash Chander Co. v. ITO in ITA No. 568/Asr/2008, AY 2006-07 (2009) 121 TTJ 718 dated 13th Jan., 2009 is not applicable to the facts of the present case of the assessee as in that case the Tribunal has dealt with the issue and genuineness and payments of 15% interest to the relatives u/s. 40A(2) whereas in the present case, the issue is claim of payment of sales commission against sales incentives paid as part of salary package to the employees of the assessee company without deducting TDS. 8. Similarly, the judgment given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders Lt vs. CIT , (2006) 206 CTR (SC) 631 : (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC), on the issue of commercial expediency is of no help to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
