Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Rajesh Maheshwari Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1132049
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnMar-06-2014
AppellantCommissioner of Income Tax
RespondentShri Rajesh Maheshwari Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon
Excerpt:
i.t.a.nos :: 166 /2010 & 168 /2010 commissioner of income tax, jabalpur versus shri rajesh maheshwari 06.03.2014. shri sanjay lal for the appellant (in both cases).as common questions of law and fact are involved in both these appeals, they are being decided by this common order. respondent submitted his annual return of income tax for the assessment year 1999-2000 so also for the year 1998-1999, and for both these period, certain commission for sale of tea have been received, the respondent assessee submitted that these commissions were received by m/s vallabh refractories and ceramics products limited and the respondent acted for the said establishment based on the resolution passed by the board of directors and as the commission income was received, accounted for and utilized by the respondent for repayment of his loan, it was stated that this commission amount received cannot be treated as income of the assessee for the relevant period. the commissioner, income tax (appeals) and the appellate tribunal having accepted the contention of the assessee and having permitted deletion of a sum of `42,07,567/- for the financial year 1999-2000 on this count; and, a sum of `20,43,975/- for the financial year 1998-99, both these appeals are filed by the revenue under section 260-a of the income tax act. shri s.m.lal, learned counsel for the appellant, took me through the material available on record and tried to emphasize that the assessing officer has recorded a finding that the commissions were received by the assessee in his individual capacity and, therefore, the additions made by the assessing officer were interfered with by the appellate authority without any justification. on the contrary, based on a judgment rendered by the high court of gujarat in the case of jyoti limited versus commissioner of income tax, 321 itr135 the appellate authority have held that the assessee acted as an agent for m/s vallabh refractories and ceramics products limited on the basis of the authority granted by the board of the said company, and as the amount of commission was earned by m/s vallabh refractories and ceramics products 2 limited, and was utilized by the respondent for repayment of his loan, the appeal filed by the department has been rejected. we have gone through the findings recorded by the appellate authority and we find that after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, communications and the proceedings of the board of directors meeting held, and other documents pertaining to the transactions in question, particularly the records of m/s vallabh refractories and ceramics products limited, a finding has been recorded that the assessee respondent acted on behalf of this establishment and it is the commission for the said establishment. that being the position, we see no reason to interfere into the matter as the finding recorded is a finding of fact based on due appreciation of the evidence and material that came on record. the said finding recorded concurrent in nature does not give rise to any substantial question of law, which warrants reconsideration now by us in these proceedings. accordingly, finding no ground for indulgence, both the appeals are rejected. (rajendra menon) ( j.k.jain ) judge judge aks/-
Judgment:

I.T.A.Nos :: 166 /2010 & 168 /2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur versus Shri Rajesh Maheshwari 06.03.2014.

Shri Sanjay Lal for the appellant (in both cases).As common questions of law and fact are involved in both these appeals, they are being decided by this common order.

Respondent submitted his annual return of income tax for the assessment year 1999-2000 so also for the year 1998-1999, and for both these period, certain commission for sale of tea have been received, the respondent assessee submitted that these commissions were received by M/s Vallabh Refractories and Ceramics Products Limited and the respondent acted for the said establishment based on the resolution passed by the Board of Directors and as the commission income was received, accounted for and utilized by the respondent for repayment of his loan, it was stated that this commission amount received cannot be treated as income of the assessee for the relevant period.

The Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal having accepted the contention of the assessee and having permitted deletion of a sum of `42,07,567/- for the financial year 1999-2000 on this count; and, a sum of `20,43,975/- for the financial year 1998-99, both these appeals are filed by the revenue under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act.

Shri S.M.Lal, learned counsel for the appellant, took me through the material available on record and tried to emphasize that the assessing officer has recorded a finding that the commissions were received by the assessee in his individual capacity and, therefore, the additions made by the assessing officer were interfered with by the appellate authority without any justification.

On the contrary, based on a judgment rendered by the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Jyoti Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, 321 ITR135 the appellate authority have held that the assessee acted as an agent for M/s Vallabh Refractories and Ceramics Products Limited on the basis of the authority granted by the Board of the said Company, and as the amount of commission was earned by M/s Vallabh Refractories and Ceramics Products 2 Limited, and was utilized by the respondent for repayment of his loan, the appeal filed by the department has been rejected.

We have gone through the findings recorded by the appellate authority and we find that after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, communications and the proceedings of the Board of Directors meeting held, and other documents pertaining to the transactions in question, particularly the records of M/s Vallabh Refractories and Ceramics Products Limited, a finding has been recorded that the assessee respondent acted on behalf of this establishment and it is the commission for the said establishment.

That being the position, we see no reason to interfere into the matter as the finding recorded is a finding of fact based on due appreciation of the evidence and material that came on record.

The said finding recorded concurrent in nature does not give rise to any substantial question of law, which warrants reconsideration now by us in these proceedings.

Accordingly, finding no ground for indulgence, both the appeals are rejected.

(RAJENDRA MENON) ( J.K.JAIN ) JUDGE JUDGE Aks/-