Case: Nawabganj Sugar Mills Company Limited &amp; Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi &amp; Rajasthan

2. The reference was asked for by the three different Companies by whom the above appeals are filed in respect ofof 1965 connected with I.T.C. Nos.of 1965 arising from a common order of theAppellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench. As the facts in the case and questions of law sought to be referred were common, the following tabular statement will give an idea of the appeals filed by the three Companies, who are the appellants together with the particulars regarding the years of assessment and>3. The Basti Sugar Mills Company limited, which is the appellant in Civil Appeals Nos. 1364 to 1367 owned two sugar factories at Basti and Waltharganj. It is their case that for the purpose of selling their output of sugar they appointed Selling agents at a commission ofof all sales of sugar effected through the agents. Their Selling agent prior to 1944 was M/s. Gursarandas Kapur and Sons at Kanpur. On July 26, 1944 by a resolution of the Board of Directors, the Company appointed M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. as the Seeling agents atcommission. In the course of the original assessment for the yearwhich was completed on March 10, 1950, theOfficer called upon the said Company to furnish details of the items of work done by M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. as Selling agents. The Company informed theOfficer that the said Selling agents have been doing the work that they were expected to do and they in turn had appointedon commission basis for effecting sales at various places. TheOfficer accepted this explanation and allowed, by order dated June 21, 1949 a deduction for Rupees 47,921/paid as commission to the selling agents. But when the assessment proceedings for the assessment yearin respect of Nawaganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. was being dealt with theOfficer took the view that the selling commission should not be allowed and accordingly issued a notice dated March 29, 1954, under S. 34 (1) (a) of theAct. 1922 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). The Company filed a return under protest.4. Regarding Nawabgani Sugar Mills Company Ltd., which is appellant in Civil Appeals Nos.of 1967 the facts are also more or less identical except that for the assessment yearax Officer by his order dated February 28, 1951 allowed a deduction of Rs. 60,980/as the amount paid as commission to the selling agents M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. For the assessment yearalso the commission paid to the said selling agent was allowed as deduction. But for the assessment yearax Officer issued a notice date January 19, 1957 requiring the said company to explain why the amount of commission claimed to have been paid by them to the selling agents should not be disallowed.5. The facts relating to M/s. Punjab Sugar Mills Company Ltd., which is the appellant in Civil Appeals Nos. 1372 and 1373 of 1967 are also identical except that in the course of assessment for the assessment yearthe commission of Rs. 37,978/paid to the same selling agent namely, Golul Nagar Sugar Mills Company Ltd. was allowed as per order dated February 27, 1950. But when dealing with the case of Nawabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. for the assessment yearax officer took the view that the selling agency commission claimed to be paid to be selling agents should not be allowed. Hence he issued a notice to the Company under S. 34 (1) (a) of the Act and the company filed a return under protest.6. It may be stated that the managing of all the three appellant companies are M/s. Narang Brothers Ltd. and their Chairman was Dr. Gokulchand Narang. The selling agent of the three appellants is also the commission agent, namely, M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.7. The controversy before theauthorities related to the claim made by all the appellants for deducting as expenditure of the business of the companies the selling agency commission paid to M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Company Ltd. In respect of some years the jurisdiction of theOfficer to take action under S. 34 of the Act was also challenged.8. In respect of the assessment yearrelating to Nawabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., the evidence, both oral and documentary, was let in by the assessee that M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., were the selling agents and that the commission paid to them as selling agents should be deducted as business expenditure. The evidence so let in was treated as common in respect of the claims made by all the three appellants.9. TheOfficer held that all the three companies were controlled and supervised by Dr. Gokulchand Narang. He further held that M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., the selling agent, was also controlled and supervised by Dr. Gokulchand Narang. Though M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. was appointed as selling agent by a resolution dated July 26, 1944, the latter rendered no service whatsoever so as to earn any commission. In this connection theOfficer referred to various items of evidence that were placed before him by the parties. Ultimately, he found that the amount claimed to have been paid as selling agent commission cannot be deducted as an item of business expenditure.10. In all the appeals filed by the three Companies, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner gave some relief by allowing deduction in respect of sums paid directly as commission to someBut on the main question relating to the amount paid to M./s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also agreed with theOfficer. The contention that action could not be taken under S. 34 (1) (c) was also rejected.11. TheAppellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench by its common order dated December 31, 1962 after a consideration of the materials on record and the reasons given by theOfficer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, rejected the claim made by the appellants in respect of the commission said to have been paid to the selling agent M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. The view of the Appellate Tribunal is that no evidence has been placed by the appellants to show that M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. had really acted as selling agent and that on the other hand the appellants themselves have been directly dealing with several subagents. In fact, the finding of the appellate Tribunal was that there was no privity of contract between the appellants and M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. On this reasoning the Appellant Tribunal also agreed with the findings recorded by the two officers that no claim for deduction in respect of selling agent commission can be allowed. The Appellate Tribunal also held that the action taken under S. 34 was justified. The result was that all the appeals filed by the three Companies were dismissed.12. The assessee companies filed applications before the Appellate Tribunal under S. 66 (1) to state a case and refer the following four questions to the High Court.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no services were rendered by M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. to M/s. Nawabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.2. Whether in holding as they have done, the Tribunal was justified in giving its decision without taking into account the statement of Shri Ram Sahai Dhir and the receipts showing the Commission paid to "M/s. Gursarandas Kapur and some subagents of the recipient company.3. Whether in view of the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal has rightly concluded that Dr. Sir G. C,. Narang signed letters acting as the Chairman of the Nawabganj Sugar Mills Co., Ltd. when he had no capacity to deal with thein that capacity.4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the provisions of Section 34 (1) (a) were rightly invoked.By its order dated February 19, 1965 the Appellate Tribunal rejected the said applications on the ground that no question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal and that the decision of the Tribunal was exclusively on facts.14. The appellants filed applications before the Delhi High Court under Section 66 (2) of the Act, to direct theAppellate Tribunal to refer the four questions, enumerated above. The High Court buy its order dated March 14, 1967, directed theAppellate Tribunal to state a case and refer question No. 4 alone, but rejected the applications of the appellants in so far as they related to questions Nos. 1 to 3. The view of the High Court is that the points covered by the questions Nos. 1 to 3 are all on facts and that in the face of the findings recorded by the Appellate Tribunal, no question of law arose for consideration.

Reasoning:
17. We are of the opinion that there is no substance in these appeals. We have gone through the orders of the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, as well as the income-tax Appellate Tribunal. No doubt, there is a resolution produced by the appellants dated July 26, 1944 in and by which the sugar selling agency of Nawabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. is given to M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. on 0-12-0%. There is no other evidence to show the nature of the arrangement or as to how exactly this resolution is to be carried out.18. A reading of questions Nos. 1 to 3 clearly shows that the points raised therein are purely questions of fact. But as the contention of Mr. V. S. Desai is that certain material facts have not been considered at all by the Tribunal and hence the findings arrived at by it cannot be conclusive, in view of this infirmity, we will refer to the evidence on record not with a view to decide whether the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence, but to see whether there was evidence to support the findings recorded by the Tribunal and whether the finding could on that evidence be reasonably reached.19. We have already referred to the resolution dated July 26, 1944. The first criticism of MR. V. S. Desai is that the evidence of sub-agents appointed by the selling agent has not been considered by the Appellate Tribunal. The two witnesses in this regard are Ram Sahai Dhir and Shiv Nand Verma. The contention of Mr. V. S. Desai that the evidence of Ram Sahai Dhir that the evidence of Ram Sahai Dhir has not been considered, as such by the Appellate Tribunal, is only technically correct because it is seen from the order of the Appellate Tribunal that it has referred to the relationship between the appellants and a company known as M/s. Ramdev and Company. Ram Sahai Dhir in his evidence has clearly stated that he is the sole proprietor of M/s. Ramdev and Company. He has further stated that after he got the sub agency from M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. he along with his brother and son formed a partnership for this purpose in the name of M/s. Ramdev and Company. The Appellate Tribunal in paragraph 7 of its order has considered a telegram sent on September 1, 1948 to M/s. Ramdev and Company by the Chairman of Nawabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. That telegram states that the agency of M/s. Gursarandas Kapur and sons has been terminated and M/s. Ramdev and Company is asked to sell and freely secure challans. Ram Sahai Dhir in his evidence has stated that M/s. Gursarandas Kapur and Sons were the selling agent of the appellants originally and that he started his own sugar business in or about 1947, Therefore, the telegram, as held by the Appellate Tribunal clearly shows that the appellants were having direct dealings with Ramdev and Company and that M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., is nowhere in the picture. This telegram also shows that the privity of contract between the appellants and Ramdev and Company will not be there if Ramdev and Company were the sub-agents appointed by M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Company Ltd. Therefore, it is clear that the relationship between the appellants and M/s. Ramdev and Sons of which Sri Ram Sahai Dhir is the sole proprietor has been considered by the Appellate Tribunal.20. Regarding Shiv Nand Verma, his evidence has only to be read to be rejected. Even according to the appellants M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Company Ltd. was appointed as Selling Agent only by the resolution dated July 26, 1944. Apart from the very contradictory answers given by this witness, he has categorically stated in answer to a specific question put by the appellants that he was appointed even in 1942 as sub-agent by M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Company Ltd., on a commission of -0-4-0%. This evidence is absolutely false and of no use to support the case of the appellants because in 1942 M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Company Ltd. was not in the picture. The evidence of this witness does not establish that M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Company Ltd. had appointed him as their sub-agents and were paying him commission, in their capacity as the selling agent of the appellants. The Appellate Tribunal has referred to the evidence of Shiv Nand Verma given before the income-tax Officer and it has also noted that reasons for not acting on that evidence. Therefore, it is not as if that the Appellate Tribunal was not conscious of this evidence on record which is absolutely valueless so far as the appellants are concerned.21. Regarding the receipts Nos. 948 dated 24-4-1946 and 298 dated February 13, 1947, it is no doubt true that they have not been specifically adverted to by the Appellate Tribunal, But it is rather surprising that the appellants should be able to produce only these two receipts when they claim that M/s. Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Company Ltd. has been acting as their selling agent from 1944. Further the persons who are mentioned there as sub-agents have not at all given evidence before the Income-tax authorities. Those receipts lose all significance especially when the evidence of Ram Sahai Dhir and Shiv Nand Verma who claim to have been appointed as sub-agents by the selling agent has been rejected by the Appellate Tribunal, Obviously, in view of the other evidence against the appellants the Appellate Tribunal did not think it worthwhile to specifically refer to these tow receipts on record. But the non-reference to these two receipts cannot be said to have in any manner vitiated the conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal. As we have stated earlier, we have only referred to these items of evidence on record to show that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal are based on the material on record and that the finding is such which could on that evidence be reasonably reached.22. The statement in the order of the High Court that the Appellate Tribunal has not referred to the evidence of Ram Sahai Dhir as such is prima facie correct. But the High Court missed the crucial fact that his evidence is really as proprietor of M/s. Ramdev and Company and the relationship between this Company and the appellants has been considered by the Appellate Tribunal.23. As laid down by this Court in (1967) 66 ITR 462 (SC) the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has to act judicially in the sense that it has to consider with due care all material facts and the evidence in favour of and against the assessee and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in their light of the evidence and the relevant law. From the discussion contained above it is clear that it cannot be said that the Appellate Tribunal in the case before us has omitted to consider any material fact or any material piece of evidence.