Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Ground No.1 of the appeal is general in nature and therefore same is dismissed.

5. Ground No.2 is with respect to confirmation of disallowance of sales commission of Rs.35,38,382. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found that assessee has paid sales commission of Rs.69,30,890. The ld. AO asked the assessee to provide the details of services rendered by these commission agents. The assessee furnished the ledger copies of the commission paid and stated that the commission is inclusive of office rent, etc. and other miscellaneous expenses. On perusal of the details filed, it was found by the AO that a sum of Rs.35,38,382 has been paid to the family members of the assessee's company directors. The AO observed that though there is a ITA Nos. 1486 & 1487/Bang/2024 decrease in the turnover, the sales commission paid is found to be unreasonable as there is no corresponding increase in the turnover. Accordingly he held that commission is not justified. The AO further held that assessee did not furnish the details of orders by each of the commission agent with supporting documents, but assessee has merely mentioned that tax is deducted at source on such commission

7. The ld. AR before us submitted that in the subsequent year i.e., AY 2016-17 in the 143(3) assessment order, on identical issue, the ld. AO has disallowed only 10% of the commission income and in the present case he has disallowed the expenses completely. He further stated that during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee has submitted ITA Nos. 1486 & 1487/Bang/2024 the complete details of the persons who provided the services to the assessee and for which payment of commission has been made. He further referred to the fact that the son of the Director to whom the commission has been paid is a BE & MBA, was actively engaged in the conduct of business of the assessee. It is not necessary that sales commission paid to the various parties is required to be co-related with individual sales to the customers. He further stated that Shri J. Srinivas Singh, Smt. Surabhi Kasturi and Smt. Varsha C. Belamkar are qualified engineers, science graduate. The disallowance made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is not on the basis of the facts produced before them, but on guess-work. He further submitted that there is no hard and fast rule of the case that payment of commission must increase the turnover and in the decreasing turnover no sales commission can be paid.

8. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. lower authorities and submitted that assessee has paid sales commission to the 6 family members which could not be justified because of decreasing turnover as well as the fact that out of 6 family members, 3 are ladies, therefore no fault can be found with the orders of the ld. lower authorities.

9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. The assessee has paid the commission of Rs.35,38,382 to the 6 family members of the directors of the assessee. We find that Shri Amit R Belamkar to whom a commission is paid of Rs.4,02,630 is M.Tech post-graduate and is ITA Nos. 1486 & 1487/Bang/2024 actively involved in the business of the company. Similarly Mr. Pawankumar A Belamkar is a BE and MBA. He is with this company since 2009. He has rendered services to the company and is paid Rs.5 lakhs as commission. Similarly Smt. Chandrakala R. Belamkar also is a BA graduate who qualified in the year 1995 and looking after the business of the company. Shri J Srinivas Singh is paid the commission of Rs.10,35,752. He is a BE and looking after the customers of the company. Smt. Surabhi Kasturi has been paid a commission of Rs.6 lakhs. She is a qualified engineer and is associated with the company since 2010. Shi Varsha C. Belamkar to whom commission of Rs. 2 lakhs is paid is MSc & MBA and looking after the technical and administrative work of the company.