Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1212 (ITAT-PANAJI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
28-11-2016
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
28-11-2016
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Appeal Filed On
31-08-2016
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1 73 /P A N/201 6 (ASST. YEAR : 20 12 - 1 3 ) ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI GOA. VS. M/S. BEIERSDORF PVT. LTD., CMM BUILDING, RUA - DE - OUREM, PANAJI GOA. PAN NO. AAACB 7395 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.E. ROBINSON ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAVIRAJ Y.V. - DR DATE OF HEARING : 2 8 / 11 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 / 11 /201 6 . O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , PANAJI - 1 IN APPEAL NO. 112/CIT(A) PNJ - 1/15 - 16, DATED 22 /0 6 /201 6 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 . 2. SHRI RAVIRAJ Y.V., DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE R E V E NUE AND SHRI D.E. ROBINSON, ADV OCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT , IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID AN AMOUNT OF 2,17,97,695/ - TO INTER I M SALES REPRESENTATIVES (ISR) AND THE SAME HAD BEEN CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD ADVERTISEMENTS AND SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS TDS HAD NOT BEEN 2 ITA NO. 173/PAN/2016 DEDUCTED IN RESPECT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES TO THE C & F AGENTS ON ACCOUNT OF ISR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ON ACCOUNT OF NON - DEDUCTION OF TDS UNDER SECTION 194H OF THE ACT AND DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE PAYMENT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT THE ISRS ARE APPOINTED AND CONTROLLED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND WERE ALSO PAID FOR BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ON THE GROUND THAT SALARY PAID IN NO CASE EXCEEDED THE MINIMUM AMOUNT CHARGEABLE TO TAX, NO TDS WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. 4 . IN REPLY, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED BEFORE US THE C & F AGREEMENTS AS ALSO THE STATEMENT OF THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THE ISR AND THE SAMPLE COPIES OF THE APPOINT MENT ORDERS OF THE REPRESENTATIVES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ISR ARE APPOINTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EACH OF THE AREAS ALL OVER INDIA AND THEY WERE REPORTING TO ISRS AGENTS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EASE OF PAYMENT, THE C & F WERE PAID BY THE C & F AGENTS WHICH WAS REIMBURSE D BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE APPOINTING ORDER S CONTAINED THE ADDRESS PROOF, IDENTITY PROOF, EDUCATION PROOF AND ALSO SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THE COST TO THE COMPANY . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN NO CASE DID THE COST TO THE COMPANY EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM AMOUNT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ISR EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF 2,17,97,695/ - WHICH SHOWED THAT IN NO CASE, THE PAYMENTS EXCEEDED THE MINIMUM AMOUNT CHARGEABLE TO TAX , IF THE REIMBURSEMENT WERE CONSIDERED . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE CONFIRMED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS . WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE C & F AGREEMENT AND ALSO THE STATEMENT OF REMUNERATION PAID TO THE ISR, COPIES OF THE APPOINTING ORDERS, SAMPLES OF THE 3 ITA NO. 173/PAN/2016 EXPENSES, CLAIM SETTLEMENTS AND ALSO COPIES OF THE SAMPLE BILLS , I N RESPECT OF THE EXPENSES, WHICH HAD BEEN CLAIMED AS REIMBURSEMENT . I T IS NOTICED THAT THE REIMBURSEMENT EXPENSES ARE BASICALLY TRAVEL EXPENSES AS ALSO THE FOOD AND LODGING EXPENSES. THE COST TO THE COMPANY IN RESPECT OF SALARY DID NOT EXCEED THE BASIC MINIMUM LIABILITY TO TAX. THIS BEING SO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARE AFTER APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISLODGED THESE FINDINGS OF FACTS. THIS BEING SO, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON MONDAY , THE 28 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 201 6 AT GOA. S D / - S D / - ( RAMIT KOCHAR ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28 TH NOVEMBER , 201 6 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. M/S. BEIERSDORF PVT. LTD., CMM BUILDING, RUA - DE - OUREM, PANAJI , GOA. 2 . THE REVENUE. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI GOA. 3 . THE PR. CIT, PANAJI . 4 . THE CIT(A) - 1, PANAJU GOA. 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., PANAJI
Mehul