ITAT Deletes Disallowance; Commission Expenses Held Genuine Despite Non-Response

The assessee company, engaged in financial consultancy, ventured into bond trading during the relevant year to expand its business prospects. It facilitated large-scale transactions of bonds with institutional clients and paid commission to multiple intermediaries who assisted in sourcing and executing these deals. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer doubted the genuineness of commission payments primarily because several parties did not respond to notices, and certain patterns in bank withdrawals and income disclosures appeared unusual.

Thus, the entire commission expenditure was treated as bogus. On appeal, the CIT(A) granted partial relief but still sustained substantial disallowances on grounds such as lack of KYC documents, similarity in confirmations, and doubts about the capacity of certain parties. Both the assessee and the Revenue challenged the order before the Tribunal.

Central Issue: Whether commission expenses can be disallowed under Section 37 merely on suspicion, non-response to notices, or perceived irregularities, despite payments being made through banking channels with TDS and supported by confirmations?

Tribunal’s Ruling: The Tribunal ruled largely in favour of the assessee and deleted the major disallowances. It held that the commission payments could not be treated as non-genuine merely because some parties failed to respond to notices or because confirmations were similarly worded. The Tribunal emphasised that payments made through proper banking channels with TDS deduction, along with PAN details and confirmations, establish prima facie genuineness. It further observed that in commercial transactions, especially in a one-time business venture like bond trading, intermediaries may operate through informal networks and contacts, which cannot be disregarded as unrealistic.

The authorities had failed to bring any concrete material on record to prove that no services were rendered or that the transactions were a sham. The Tribunal also rejected ad hoc disallowances and held that once individual transactions were examined, resorting to estimation without specific defects was unjustified. Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) was also deleted in the absence of any finding that payments to related parties were excessive. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal partly and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that the commission expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and satisfied the conditions of Section 37.

To Read Full Order, Download PDF Given Below