Dresser Valve India Private Limited, Coimbatore V. ACIT, Coimbatore

MA 109/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6875 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 19-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETGIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: P K VIJAYAR AGHAVAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI B E F O R E DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. M.P. NO.109(MDS)/2011 IN ITA NO.1945(MDS)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 DRESSER VALVE INDIA PVT.LTD., SF 608, CHETTIPALAYAM RD., EACHANARI POST, COIMBATORE 641 021. PAN AAACD2199L. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE I(1), COIMBATORE. (PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI P.K.VIJAYAR AGHAVAN, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI T.N.BETGIRI, JCIT . DATE OF HEARING : 19 TH AUGUST, 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 TH AUGUST, 2011 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSES SEE. IT IS A RECTIFICATION PETITION IN NATURE. THE PETITION IS FILED IN THE CONTEXT - - M.P. NO.109 OF 2011 2 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 25-4-2011 IN ITA NO.1945(MDS)/2010, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . 2. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE PETITIONER THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE O F COMMISSION EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 35,03,377/-. IT IS AGAIN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED T O THE AUTHORITIES AND THE SAME DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISHE D BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN PAGES 300 AND 301 OF THE PAPER-BOOK FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL MA Y AMEND ITS CONCLUSION SUITABLY. 3. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES IN DETAIL. 4. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO ` 35,03,377/- MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED EVIDENCES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. BY DETAILS AND PARTICULARS, THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT MEAN TECHNICAL EVIDENCES IN TH E FORM OF PAPERS AND VOUCHERS AND ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS AND THE PARTICULARS OF THE PAYEES. THE EVIDENCES PRODU CED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES MUST BE CREDIT-WORTHY. IN THE PRES ENT CASE IT IS - - M.P. NO.109 OF 2011 3 SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED COMMISSION PAYME NTS, PAID IN THE PROCESS OF SECURING SALES ORDERS FROM NTPC, ONGC, BHEL, ETC. ALL THE ABOVE COMPANIES ARE PUBLIC SECT OR UNDERTAKINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. IT IS THE PRIMARY DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONVINCE THE TAX AUTHORITIES ABOUT THE NECESSITY AND CONTEXT OF PAYING COMMISSION TO THE OFFICERS OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCURING SALES. T HE ASSESSEE HAS TO PRODUCE CREDIT-WORTHY EVIDENCES AND RELIABLE PARTICULARS TO OVERCOME THE QUESTIONS OF THE AUTHORITIES IN THE SE TYPES OF UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. SO ALSO, SUCH PAYMENTS IF NO T MADE FOR ANY LAWFUL CONSIDERATION, AMOUNTS TO PAYMENTS MADE AGAINST THE PUBLIC POLICY AS WELL. IT IS IN THE OVERALL BACKGR OUND OF THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN EFFECT, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING A REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS NOT P ERMISSIBLE. 6. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITIO N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. - - M.P. NO.109 OF 2011 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON FRIDAY, THE 19 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 19 TH AUGUST, 2011. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) PETITIONER (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.