KUNAL CHATURBHUJ NAGRANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1),, AHMEDABAD

PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

4. With regard to the addition of Rs.93,84,075/- is concerned, the case of the assessee is that it is providing BPO services. It has raised bill to Suchitra Enterprises. According to the AO, invoice raised in February and March,2 011 and received payment after March, 2011 ought to be recognized in the Asstt.Year 2012-13, since the assessee has recognized the income of these invoice for Asstt.Year 2011-12 by enhancing its deduction under section 10A of the Act. Therefore, the ld.AO has reopened the assessment and reduced deduction admissible in the Asstt.Year 2011-12. He added this receipt in the Asstt.Year 2012-13.

“8.2. We shall first address ourselves to the first objection of the Assessing Officer toward credibility of export turnover declared and consequent export profit flowing therefrom. On a perusal of the assessment order, it appears that the Assessing Officer was mainly guided by the fact that while the assessee has received payment against all invoices raised in other months as to instantly with no outstanding, the assessee has not received any payment against two additional invoices raised in Feb-2011 & March-2011 of USD 104850 each equivalent to Rs.93,84,075/- in aggregate. The Assessing Officer has narrated suspicious circumstances for non-accrual of income in the FY 2010-11. It is the case of the Assessing Officer that the invoices, in fact, relate to subsequent assessment year and has been merely predated to claim wrongful exemption under s.10A being the last year of eligibility. The Assessing Officer computed the Gross Profits relating to this year and the subsequent year to prop up its case against the assessee. It is the case of Assessing Officer while the two invoices once taken into account in subsequent year, the realigned GP would be somewhat similar. 8.3. On objective consideration, we note that while it is factually correct that payment for two invoices were not received in the same manner as was received for other invoices raised to its customer, namely; M/s.Suchita Enterprise Inc. this aberration, in our view, cannot be a ground for doubting the invoices itself. The assessee has demonstrated from the ‘Bank Realization Certificates’ (BRCs) issued by the Bank that the assessee has received consideration against the services rendered for the period specified therein which falls in the FY 2010-11. Simply because the payment has been received in the subsequent year would not tantamount to deferral of accrual of income also to the subsequent year. Merely because the deduction under s.10A comes to an end in this year should not necessarily trigger unwarranted suspicion against the assessee. The case made out by the Assessing Officer towards fall in Gross Profit etc. is refutable. It is difficult to dislodge the claim of the assessee based on such shallow evidences. The assessee, on the other hand, requires to be believed on account of reporting the transactions in SOFTEX form with STPI including this turnover as well as in the light of Bank Realization Certificates placed on record. The adjustment made by the Assessing Officer towards reduction of export turnover and export profits is thus requires to be discarded.”