Bombay High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sigma Paints Ltd. on 18 September, 1990
Equivalent citations: [1991]188ITR6(BOM)
Author: Sujata V. Manohar
Bench: Sujata V. Manohar
JUDGMENT T.D. Sugla, J.
1.This is an application by the Department under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question sought to be referred as a question of law is :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the secret commission amounting to Rs. 1,41,346 paid by the assessee was an allowable deduction within the meaning of section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?"
2. The proceedings relate to the assessment year 1979-80. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has held that the secret commission involved herein is allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, following the Tribunal's Special Bench decision in the case of First ITO v. French Dyes and Chemicals (I.) (P.) Ltd. in Income-tax Act Appeals Nos. 182 to 194 and others (Bom) of 1982 dated July 31, 1984. Shri Patel, learned counsel for the respondent assessee, has invited our attention to the fact that the assessee had appeared as an intervener before the Special bench of the Tribunal when it was considering the appeals relating to French Dyes and Chemicals (I.) (P.) Ltd. He has further invited our attention to paragraphs 24 to 28 of the judgment in that case to show that the assessee had produced various details and the records maintained by the company relating to the secret commission payments. Vouchers for the amounts received by the sales officer or other responsible persons for the payment of secret commission were available. The details of sales transactions entered into with various mill-companies, in respect of which secret commission had to be paid, were available. There was a complete tally between the commission paid and the extent of business done by the mill-company. Details were also available of the exact transactions in respect of which the assessee had to pay the secret commission. The assessee had given a complete list showing the turnover and the amount of secret commission paid from year to year. The percentage of secret commission was minimal. The full details of payment on the above basis in respect of several parties were available. They were correlated to the transactions which the assessee had with those persons and the period during which the transactions were entered into. The only missing item was stated to be the names of the particular parties to whom the payments were made. This, the Tribunal held, could not be supplied without detriment to the business of the assessee in the very nature of things. Shri Patel then pointed out that, in paragraph 29 of the judgment, the Special Bench of the Tribunal noted that the position was the same in the case of Indochem Ltd. and that of the assessee.
3. On the above stated facts, our judgment in the case of CIT v. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 1 (Income-tax Reference No. 606 of 1976) dated August 21, 1990, squarely applies. Accordingly, we agree with the Tribunal that its conclusion is based on a finding of fact arrived at on the basis of good and cogent material.
4. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.