BHIMAAS ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI V. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

MA 102/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0474 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . !, # !$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %% / M.P. NO.102/CHNY/2019 (IN I.T.A. NO.2907/CHNY/2018) & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 M/S BHIMAAS ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NO.50, VIVEKANANDA COLONY, PALANI ANDAVAR KOIL STREET, VADAPALANI, CHENNAI - 600 026. PAN : AAFCB 7970 G V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. ()*& /PETITIONER) ()+*,/ RESPONDENT) )*& . / /PETITIONER BY : SHRI SANJIV KUMAR SHAH, CA )+*, . / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT 0 . 1# / DATE OF HEARING : 06.09.2019 23' . 1# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.09.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER O F THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 21.03.2019. 2 M.P. NO.102/CHNY/19 2. SHRI SANJIV KUMAR SHAH, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE F OR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPEN DITURE TOWARDS PURCHASE COMMISSION AND SALES COMMISSION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE PURCHASE COMMISSION WAS ALLOWED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AND THERE WAS NO REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, THE ISSUE WI TH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF PURCHASE COMMISSION ATTAINED FINALITY. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF SALES COMMISSION, THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFI RMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFO RE, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE PA YMENT OF SALES COMMISSION AND NOT PURCHASE COMMISSION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE PURCHASE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO M/S TRR AUTOMOTIVE. THE SALES COMMISSION WAS PAID TO SHRI ARULTHAKSHANAN AND MRS. A. VILASHINI. THIS TRIBUNA L, HOWEVER, MISCONSTRUED THE PAYMENTS AND CONFIRMED THE DISALLO WANCE IN BOTH SALES COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE PURCHASE COMMISSION . ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE PURCHASE COMMISSION IS NOT AN ISSUE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IT ATTAINED FINALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPR ESENTATIVE, THERE IS MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 3 M.P. NO.102/CHNY/19 3. WE HEARD SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THE LD. D.R. VERY FAIRLY CONC EDED THAT THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF PURCHASE COMMISSION IS NOT AN ISSUE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL ORDER HAS TO BE CONFINED TO PAYMENT OF SALES COMMISSION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SID E AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO THOSE PERSO NS INVOLVED IN PROCURING EXPORT ORDERS AND OPENING OF LETTER OF CR EDIT. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THIS ISSUE RELATES TO PAYMENT OF COMMISSION ON THE SALE OF PRODUCT. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. R EPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. D.R., THE ISSUE WITH REGAR D TO PAYMENT OF PURCHASE COMMISSION IS NOT AN ISSUE BEFORE THIS TRI BUNAL. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PAYMENT OF PURCHASE COMMISS ION WAS MADE TO M/S TRR AUTOMOTIVE. THE PAYMENT MADE TO M/S TRR AUTOMOTIVE IS ADMITTEDLY ALLOWED BY THE CIT(APPEALS ). IN FACT, THE CIT(APPEALS) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEFORE THIS TRIB UNAL, HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS AT PARA 8:- 8. THE APPELLANTS CONTENTIONS ARE CONSIDERED. AS REGARDS THE COMMISSION PAYMENT TO TRR AUTOMOTIVE, T HE APPELLANT HAS PLACED ON RECORD CONFIRMATION FROM TH E PARTY 4 M.P. NO.102/CHNY/19 ADMITTING THE RECEIPT OF COMMISSION TO THE EXTENT OF 8,96,890/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THIS COMMISSION AFTER VERIFYING THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX BY TRR AUTOMOTIVE. 5. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE F OR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. D.R., NO APPEAL WAS FILED BY T HE REVENUE AGAINST THIS DIRECTION OF THE CIT(APPEALS). THEREF ORE, THE PAYMENT MADE TO M/S TRR AUTOMOTIVE ATTAINED FINALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). WHAT WAS DISPUTED IN THE APPEAL BY T HE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT MADE TO SHRI ARULTHAKSHANAN AND MRS. A. VILASHINI. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS TO CONFINE ITSELF ONLY TO THE PAYMENT MADE TO SHRI ARULTHAKSHANAN AND MRS. A. VIL ASHINI. SINCE THE PAYMENT MADE TO M/S TRR AUTOMOTIVE IS ALSO CONF IRMED BY THIS TRIBUNAL AT PARA 7, THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. IN OTHER WORDS, THIS TRIBUNAL OUGHT TO HAVE CONFINED T HE ORDER ONLY TO THE PAYMENT MADE TO SHRI ARULTHAKSHANAN AND MRS. A. VILASHINI. THEREFORE, THIS NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY , THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 21.03.2019 IS RECTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:- AT PAGE 5 PARA 7 IN THE LAST LINE, THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE DELETED: AND TRR AUTOMOTIVE AFTER THE ABOVE DELETION, THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBU NAL SHALL BE READ AS FOLLOWS AS FAR AS THE LAST THREE LINES AT PARA 7: 5 M.P. NO.102/CHNY/19 HOWEVER, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO PAYMENTS MADE TO SHRI ARULTHAKSHANAN AND MRS. A. VILASHINI IS CONFIRMED. 6. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE MISCELLANEOUS PE TITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. ! ) ( ... ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANE SAN) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019. KRI. . )16% 7%'1 /COPY TO: 1. )*& / PETITIONER 2. )+*, /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A) 4. 0 81 /CIT 5. %9 )1 /DR 6. :& ; /GF.