1.Reopening of assessment – No tangible material before the AO for assuming the jurisdiction u/s. 147- Reopening notice was bad in law: Section 148

The assessee-company was engaged in trading of dyes and chemicals. A search was carried out in business premises of assessee wherein documents seized showed that assessee had paid commission to sister concern for rendering services of sales agent. According to the Assessing Officer, the relationship between the parties militated against the claim being bona fide, particularly in the absence of proof of rendition of service by the sales agent. He thus rejected assessee’s claim for payment of commission. The Commissioner(Appeals) noted that sister concern had been appointed as sales agent for the sake of maintaining uniformity in sale prices and to avoid unnecessary and uneconomical competition between the sister concerns. A decision thus came to be taken by the entities that a bifurcation of duties was called for and one concern was identified to act as the selling agent for the entire group of companies. The transaction thus found favour with the Commissioner as being bona fide and genuine. The Tribunal also approved the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the claim.

On appeal by the Revenue, one of the questions raised was:

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the price difference borne by the assessee company in respect of the transaction with M/s. United Bleachers Limited, a sister concern, could not be disallowed alternatively, u/s. 40A(2), ignoring the reasons given in support of the addition by the Assessing Officer.?”

The Madras High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“i)    There is no prohibition that related parties cannot engage in business transactions. Such an interpretation would render the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act redundant. Section 40A(2) empowers the Assessing Officer to effect a disallowance of payments that are, ‘in his opinion’ excessive or unreasonable giving regard to fair market value of the goods, services or facilities for which the payment is made or the legitimate needs of the business or profession of the assessee or the benefit derived by him or accruing to him. Such ‘opinion’ has to be based on tangible material and not assumptions and suspicions.

ii)    The provisions of section 40A(2) are not automatic and can be called into play only if the Assessing Officer establishes that the expenditure incurred is, in fact, in excess of fair market value. This had not been done in the present case. The quantum of commission paid is thus at arms length. The decision to streamline business activities and establish a division of labour or hierarchy of operations is within the domain of the entities and cannot be trespassed upon by the Assessing Officer except where the officer establishes that such design or method is a ruse to circumvent legitimate payment of tax.

iii)    The Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings BV. vs. Union of India [2012] 341 ITR 1/204 Taxman 408/17 taxmann.com 202 points out the difference between ‘looking through’ a transaction and ‘looking at’ a transaction settling the position that a conclusion of colourable/sham can be arrived at by viewing the transaction in a commercially realistic and wholistic perspective, not adopting a truncated and dissecting approach. In the present case, there is a consistent finding of fact that the transaction was bona fide and acceptable. Nothing is placed on record to indicate that the findings are perverse. Thus there is no need to interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities. In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed.”