ivil Appeal No 1011 of 1972
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 18th August 1971 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Income Tax Reference No 17 of 1971
section T Desai Mrs AK Verma and Shri Narain for the Appellant
TA Ramachandran and RN Sachthey for Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J
The short question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether certain commission paid by the assessee to two of its employees is an allowable expenditure in computing the profits of the assessee from business
The assessee is a registered firm which at all material times consisted of five partners namely Chaman Lal Madan Lal Harbans Lal Raj Mohan and Saheb Dayal representing a trust
Chaman Lal was the son of Saheb Daval and Raj Mohan was the son of one Gurditta Mal
During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1963 64 Chaman Lal and Harbans Lal had their own independent factories and hence they were not attending 531 to the business of the assessee and Raj Mohan too was not actively associated with the conduct of the business of the assessee as he was working with the Oriental Carpet Manu facturers India Pvt Ltd hereinafter referred to as OCM
Thus from amongst the partners only Madan Lal was looking after the day to day management of the business of the assessee and he was assisted by Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal who were engaged as employees of the assessee
Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal were looking after the busi ness of the assessee since a long time and they were each paid remuneration of Rs 1000per month
The business of the assessee consisted of sole selling agency of OCM in respect of yarn cloth and blankets manufactured by OCM and for the sales affected by the assessee as such sole selling agents commission was paid to the assessee by OCM
The figures show that the business of the assessee prospered from year to year from 1959 60 onwards and there was a gradual increase in the turnover of the assessee which jumped from the figure of Rs 3999 lacs for the assessment year 1962 63 to the figures of Rs 5428 lacs for the as sessment year 1963 64
Since the assessee showed very satisfactory turnover from year to year OCM started giving to the assessee in addition to the usual commission over riding commission at the rate of 212 on the sales affected by the assessee and the over riding commission thus re ceived by the assessee during the previous years correspond ing to the assessment year 1960 61 to 1963 64 was as fol lows Assessment year Amount Received 1960 61 Rs 35964 1961 62 Rs 61818 1962 63 Rs 83922 1963 64 Rs 113449 Since the turnover of the sales reached the figure of Rs 5428 lacs and overriding commission increased to Rs 113449 during the previous year corresponding to the assessment year 1963 64 the assessee decided to give to each of Saheb Dayal and Gurdita Mal who were look ing after the business and were primarily responsible for the increased prosperity of the assessee commission at the rate of 12 of the sales out of 212 overriding commis sion received from OCM and each of these two employees was accordingly paid by the assessee a sum of Rs 22690 by way of commission
The aggregate amount of commission paid to Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal thus came to Rs 45380 and this amount of commission was claimed by the assessee as a deductible expenditure in its assessment to income tax for the assessment year 1963 64
The Income Tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that there was no material produced by the assessee which would prove the nature of services rendered by these two gentlemen in lieu of which the commission is claimed to have been paid and there being no evidence to show that the increase in sales during the relevant accounting year was due to the efforts of Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal the claim for deduction of the amount of commission as a business expenditure remained unproved
The assessee appealed against the disallowance of the amount of commission but the Appellate Assistant Commis sioner in appeal affirmed the disallowance on the ground that no evidence had been 532 produced by the assessee to prove that the activities of Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal in the relevant account year were or a nature different from those in the earlier years or that they put in any extra time or energyin the conduct of the business of the assessee so as to justify the payment of the commission and hence it could not be said that the commisson was paid for services rendered by them
The matter was carried in further appeal before the Tribu nal but the Tribunal also took the same view and held that since there was no proof to show that any services were rendered by Saheb Dayal and Gurudayal Mal for which payment of commission in addition to salary and bonus could be justified commission could not be said to have been paid for services rendered so as to attract the applicability of section 36 subsection 1  clause ii
The Tribunal observed that it was not possible to say that the increase in the turnover in the year under appeal was due to the extra efforts put in by these two employees or that the employees had worked in the hope of receiving extra commission and since bonus equivalent to three months  salary was paid to saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal in addition to their salary during the relevant accounting year any extra services rendered by them if any should be deemed to have been covered by the payment of this bonus Since in the view taken by the Tribunal it was necessary that there should be some extra services rendered by Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal for which payment of commission could be said to be justi fied and there was nothing to show that any such extra services were rendered by them the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the payment of commission could not be said to be justified on grounds of commercial expediency and section 36 sub section 1 clause ii had no application
The assessee being aggrieved by the order made b the tribu nal applied for a reference of the question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal and on the application of the assessee the following question of law was referred for the opinion of the High Court Whether on the facts and circum stances of the case the sum of Rs 45380 paid to L Gurandittamal and L Sahebdiyal employees of the applicant firm is permissi ble deduction in computing the business income of the applicant  The High Court answered the question in favour of the Revenue
The view taken by the High Court was that in order to attract the applicability of section 36 sub section 1 clause ii it was necessary that the payment of commission should be for services rendered and since there was no evidence led on behalf of the assessee to show that any extra services were rendered by Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal which were responsible for increase in the sales and consequent enlargement of the overriding commission there was no justification for payment of commission to them and the commission paid could not be said to be for services rendered
The High Court in this view held that section 36 sub section 1 clause ii was not applicable and no claim for deduction could be sustained under it
The correctness of this decision is impinged in the present appeal preferred by the assessee with special leave obtained from this Court
533 Now before we proceed to consider the question which arises for determination before us we must make it clear at the out set that m the present case the genuineness of the payment of commission made to Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal was at no time doubted by the Revenue authorities
It was not the ease of the Revenue that this payment was not made or that it was sham or bogus
If that had been the finding there would have been an end of the case of the assessee
No question would then have arisen for considering the applica bility of section 36 sub section 1 clause ii
No payment having been made no deduction would have been permissible
But here the commission was paid it was a genuine payment and the only question was whether it was deductible as an allowable expenditure under section 36 sub section 1 clause ii
Section 36 sub section 1 provides for making of various deductions in computing the income of an assessee under the head Profits and Gains of Business or Profession and one such deduction is set out in clause ii which as it stood at the material time during the assessment year 1963 64 read as follows 361ii Any sum paid to an employee as bonus or commission for services rendered where such sum would not have been payable to him as profit or dividend if it had not been paid as bonus or commission Provided that the amount of bonus or commission is reasonable with reference to a the pay of the employee and the condi tions of his service b the profits of the business or profes sion for the previous year in question and c the general practice in similar busi ness or profession
 Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal were admittedly employees of the assessee
They were each paid a salary of Rs 1000 per month and for the previous year relevant to the assess ment year 1963 64 bonus equivalent to three months  salary was also paid to each of them
The income Tax Officer disal lowed even this salary and bonus paid to Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal on the ground that there was nothing to show that any services were rendered by them and the payment of salary and bonus appeared to be ex gratia
But this deci sion was reversed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who following his earlier order dated 12th December 1967 in the appeal against the assessment to tax for the assessment year 1962 63 allowed the payment of salary and bonus as a deductible expenditure
The Appel late Assistant Commissioner cearly recognised that Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal were employees of the assessee and were attending to the business of the assessee as such employees since a long time and Gurditta Mal was in fact a seasoned and experienced businessman and he looked after the assessee s transactions with OCM and on behalf of he assessee advised OCM in connection with designs etc
The Tribunal also found that Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal 534 were looking after the business of the assessee firm for a long time
Thus there can be no doubt that services were rendered by Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal to the asses see and for these services besides Salary and bonus com mission was paid to them because according to the asses see during the relevant accounting year there was consid erable enlargement in the turnover of the sales with consequent increase in the amount of overriding commis sion and the assessee felt on grounds of commercial expediency that a part of the overriding commission should be paid to the two employees who had worked so well and contributed to the prosperity of the assessee
The question is whether this commission qualifies for deduction as an allowable expenditure under section 36 sub section 1 cause ii
The only ground on which the High Court negatived the ap plicability of section 36 sub section 1 clause ii was that during the relevant accounting year Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal rendered the same services which they were rendering in earlier years and no extra services were ren dered by them which could justify payment of commission in addition to salary and bonus
The High Court appeared to take the view that there must be correlation between the payment of commission and the services rendered and since commission was paid by the assessee for the first time during the relevant accounting year there must be some extra services rendered by Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal in that year over and above the usual services rendered by them in the earlier years
Since according to the High Court there was no proof that any extra services were rendered by Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal the High Court held that the payment of commission could not be said to be for services rendered within the meaning of section 36 sub section 1 clause ii
This view taken by the High Court is in our opinion plainly erroneous
Section 36 sub section 1  clause ii does not postulate that there should be any extra services rendered by an employee before payment of commission to him can be justi fied as on allowable expenditure
What it requires is only this namely that commission paid to an employee should be for services rendered by him
For example if an employ ee has not rendered any services at all during the relevant accounting year no commission can be paid to him which would be an allowable expenditure
There must be some services rendered by an employee and where commission is paid for the services so rendered section 36 sub section 1 clause ii would apply and the commission to the extent to which it is found reasonable would be an allowable expenditure under that provision
It is not necessary that the commission should be paid under a contractual obligation
It may be purely voluntary
But it must be for services rendered and here services were in fact rendered by Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal during the relevant accounting year
It is true that the services rendered by these two employees during the relevant accounting year were in no way greater or more onerous than the services ren dered by them in the earlier years but that is immaterial
There is no such requirement and the argument based on it cannot be sustained
It is not justified by the language of section 36 sub section 1 clause ii and indeed if it were pushed to its logical extreme it would be difficult to support even payment of bonus as a permissible deduction under that provision
Of course the circumstance that no additional services are rendered 535 by an employee would undoubtedly be of some relevance in determining the reasonableness of the amount of commission but it would have to be considered along with other circum stances and the question whether commercial expediency justified the payment of commission would have to be judged in the light of all the circumstances existing at the mate rial time
This was the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in Laxmandas Sejram vs Commissioner of Income Tax Gujarat 1 and we wholly accept that view
It is therefore no answer to the applicability of section 36 sub section 1 clause ii to say that no extra services were rendered by Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal during the relevant accounting year
The amount of commission having been paid for services admittedly rendered by them the only question would be whether it was reasonable under section 36 sub section 1 clause ii
Turning to the provisions of section 36 sub section 1 clause ii we find that the proviso to that clause lays down three factors for the purpose of determining the reasonableness of the commission paid to an employee
The question whether the amount of the commission is a reasona ble amount or not has to be determined with reference to these three factors
Sometimes these three factors are loosely described as conditions but they are not really conditions on the fulfilment of which alone the amount of commission paid to an employee can be regarded as reasona ble
They are merely factors to be taken into account by the Revenue authorities in determining the reasonable ness of the amount of commission
It may be that one of these factors yields a negative response
To take an exam ple there may be no general practice in similar business or profession to give commission to an employee but yet having regard to the other circumstances the amount of commission paid to the employee may be regarded as reasonable
What the proviso requires is merely that the reason ableness of the amount of commission shall be determined with reference to the three factors
But it is well settled that these factors are to be considered from the point of view of a normal prudent businessman
The reasonableness of the payment with reference to those factors has to be judged not on any subjective standard of the assessing authority but from the point of view of commercial expediency
Let us see whether the amount of commission paid to Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal in the present case can be said to be reasonable from this stand point
It is clear from the order of the Tribunal that reliance was placed by the Tribunal mainly and substantially on the fact that the nature of the work done by Saheb Dayal and Gurditra Mal remained unchanged in the relevant accounting year and there was nothing to show that the increase in the turnover during the relevant accounting year was as a result of any extra efforts made by these two employees and hence it could not be said that there were any special circumstances which warranted the payment of commission to them
But as al ready pointed out above the commission aid to an employee cannot be branded as unreasonable merely because the employ ee has done m the relevant accounting year the same work which he was doing in the earlier years
Even where the nature of the work has remained the same commercial expedi ency may require payment of commission to an employee
Here Saheb Dayal and Gurditta 1 536 Mal were each receiving a salary of Rs 1000 per month and besides this salary there were admittedly no other perqui sites given to them
They were the persons attending to the business of the assessee and in fact Gurditta Mal was an experienced and seasoned businessman and it was he who was advising OCM in regard to designs etcand he and Saheb Dayal were primarily responsible for the flourishing state of the business
The turnover of the sales of the assessee steadily rose from 1960 61 and in the relevant accounting year it reached the exciting figure of Rs 5428 lacs
So also the overriding commission which started with the modest figure of Rs 35964 in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1960 61 went on steadily increasing from year to year until it reached the figure of Rs 113449 in the relevant accounting year
The assessee therefore felt that in view of the tremendous progress in the business which was largely the result of the services rendered by Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal apart of the overriding commission should be paid to them so than they may carry a sense of satisfaction that their efforts have been suitably rewarded and they may have an added incentive to work and may be spurred to greater efficiency in the future
It may be noted that the overriding commission of the assessee during the relevant accounting year was Rs 113449 and the total profit was Rs 308034 and if out of this total profit of Rs 308034  an aggregate sum of Rs 45380 was paid to Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal as commission it is difficult to see how such payment could be regarded as unreasonable
It is true that there was no obligation on the assessee to make payment of this commission to Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal but it is now well settled that the mere fact that commission is paid ex gratia would not necessarily mean that it is unreasonable
Commercial expediency does not mean that an employer should not make any payment to all employee unless the employee is entitled to it under a contract
Even where there is no contract an employer may pay commission to an employee if he thinks that it would be in the interest of his business to do so
It is obvious that no business can prosper unless the employees engaged in it are satisfied and contented and they feel a sense of involvement and identifi cation and this can be best secured by giving them a stake in the business and allowing them to share in the profits
It would indeed be a wise step on the part of an employer to offer incentive to his employees by sharing a part of his profits with them
This would not only be good business but also good ethics
It would be in consonance with Gandhian concept as also modern socialistic thought which with its deeply rooted faith in social and economic democracy regards the employees as much as the employer as co sharers in the business
If an employer earns profits to which the employees have necessarily contributed by putting in their labour there is no reason why the employer should not share a part of these profits with the employees
That is the demand of social justice today and it is high time that the administration of our tax law recog nised it and encouraged sharing of profits by employers with employees by adopting a progressive and liberal approach in the applicability of section 36 sub section 1 clause ii What is the requirement of commercial expediency must bejudged not in the light of the 19th Century laissez faire doctrine which regarded man as an economic being concerned only to protect and 537 advance his serf interest but in the context of current socio economithinking which places the general interest of the community above the personal interest of the individu al and believes that a business or undertaking is the product of the combined efforts of the employer and the employees and where there is sufficiently large profit after providing for the salary or remuneration of the employer and the employees and other prior charges such as interest on capital depreciation reserves etca part of it should in all fairness go to the employees
We are there fore of the view that the sum of Rs 45380 paid by the assessee to Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal by way of commission during the relevant accounting year was reasona ble having regard to all the circumstances of the case and it ought to have been allowed as a deductible expenditure under section 36 sub section 1 clauseii
We accordingly allow the appeal set aside the judgment of the High Court and answer the question referred by the Tribunal in the affirmative in favour of the assessee
The Commissioner will pay the costs of the appeal as also of the reference to the assessee
SR Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellants were the sole selling agents of the Oriental Carpet Manufacturers India Pvt Ltd in respect of yarn cloth and blankets manufactured by them and for the sales effected by the appellants as such sole selling agent s commission was paid to them by OCM
Since the appellants showed very satisfactory turnover from year to year OCM started giving to them in addition to the usual commission over riding commission  212 per cent on the sales effected by the appellants
Since the turnover of the sales reached the figure of Rs 5428 lacs and over riding commission increased to Rs l13449 during the previous year corresponding to the assessment year 1963 64 the appellants paid out of the over riding commission received by them a sum of Rs 22690 ie at the rate of 12 of the sales each to two of their employees viz Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mall since they were primarily responsible for the increased prosperity of the appellants
The commission so paid viz Rs 45380 was claimed by the appellants as a deductible expenditure in their assessment to income tax for the assessment year 1963 64
The Income Tax Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that there was no evi dence to show that the increase in sales during the relevant accounting year was due to the efforts of Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal preferred to him and held that since no evidence had been produced by the assessee to prove that the activi ties of Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal in the relevant account year were of a nature different from those in the earlier years so that they put in any extra time or energy in the conduct of the business of the assessee so as to justify the payment of the commission it could not be said that the commission was paid for services rendered by them
The Tribunal in further appeal took the same view and held that since there was no proof to show that any extra services were rendered by Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal for which payment of commission in addition to salary and bonus could be justified commission could not be said to have been paid for services rendered so as to attract the applicability of section 361ii of the Act
The High Court was also of the same view and answered the reference made to it in favour of the Revenue
Allowing the appeal by special leave the Court HELD 1 The sum of Rs 45380 paid by the assessee to Saheb Dayal and Gurditta Mal by way of commission during the relevant accounting year was reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case and it ought to have been allowed as a deductible expenditure section 361ii of the Income Tax Act
537 B 2 Section 36 sub section 1 clause ii does not postulate that there should be any extra services rendered by an employee before payment of commission to him can be justified as an allowable expenditure
What it requires is only this namely that commission paid to an employee should be for some services rendered by him
It is not necessary that the commission should be paid under a con tractual obligation
It may be purely voluntary
3 It is immaterial that the services rendered during the relevant accounting year were in no way greater or more onerous than the services rendered in the earlier years
There is no such requirement under the section and it is not justified by the language of section 36 sub sectionl clause ii and indeed if it were pushed to its logical extreme even payment of bonus cannot be treated as permissible deduction under that provision
534 G H 530 4 It is now well settled that the mere fact that commission is paid exgratia would not necessarily mean that it is unreasonable
Commercial expediency does not mean that an employer should not make any payment to an employee unless the employee is entitled to it under a contract
What is the requirement of commercial expediency must be judged not in the light of the 19th Century laissez faire doctrine which regarded man as an economic being concerned only to protect and advance his self interest but in the context of current socio economic thinking which places the general interest of the community above the personal interest of the individual and believes that a business or undertaking is the product of the combined efforts of the employer and the employees and where there is sufficiently large profit after providing for the salary or remuneration of the employer and the employees and other prior charges such as interest on capital depreciation reserves etc as part of it should in all fairness go to the employees
536 E G 5 The question whether commercial expediency justified the payment of commission would have to be judged in the light of
all the circumstances existing at the material time
In the instant case the assessee felt on grounds of commercial expediency that a part of the over riding commis sion should be raid besides salary and bonus to its two employees who had worked so well and contributed to the prosperity of the assessee and did make the payment
525 AB Laxmandas Sejram vs CIT Gujarat approved
6 The question whether the amount of the commission is a reasonable amount or not has to be determined with refer ence to the three factors laid down in section 361ii
Though described loosely as conditions they are not really conditions on the fulfilment of which alone the amount of commission paid to an employee can be regarded as reasona ble
The reasonableness of the amount of commission has to be considered from the point of view of a normal prudent businessman and not on any subjecting standard of the assessing authority
525 C D Observation It is high time that the administration of our tax law recognised the demand of social justice today viz profit sharing by the employees and encouraged it by adopting a progressive and liberal approach in the applicability of section 36 subsection 1 clause ii
536 H