CONVERGYS INFOWAVZ P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(2), MUMBAI

This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17 [in short ‘CIT(A)’], Mumbai and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).

During the course of hearing, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that the assessee would not like to press the 2nd ground of appeal

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) followed the order of his predecessor for the AY 2011-12 and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relies on the order of the Tribunal for the AY 2009-10 in and ITA No. 2799/Mum/2017. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The same issue arose before the Tribunal in AY 2009-10. In the 1st round (ITA No. 6896/Mum/2012), the ITAT ‘I’ Bench remitted back the issue to the file of the AO to find out as to whether the parent company was working from other premises during the year under consideration. In the 2nd round (ITA No. 2799/Mum/2017), the Tribunal vide order dated 07.03.2018 held as under: “8. It is also noted that the matter in the first round was remitted back by the coordinate bench to verify two things viz. whether the parent company i.e. SISPL was operating from any other premises and secondly, whether the parent company had claimed any part of stated expenditure in his books of accounts. On the basis of above facts as enumerated by us in para-6 above, we find that both the requirements have successfully been demonstrated by the assessee before the lower authorities and there Convergys India Services is nothing contrary on record against the assessee. Therefore, in principle, while agreeing with the claim of the assessee, we find that the expenditure claimed by the assessee require reconciliation and explanation as per observation in para-7. It is also observed that the assessee was in possession of 25008 Square Feet of space during first three month of the impugned AY whereas it was occupying 17448 Square Feet during the balance period, against which no plausible explanation is available on record. It is noted that the assessee was a corporate entity registered with Service Tax Authorities / STPI Authority / other statutory bodies and was required to get appropriate endorsement as to change in premises / addresses under those laws.

Therefore, on facts and circumstances of the case while primarily concurring with the stand of Ld. AR, the matter stands remitted back to Ld. AO with a direction to the assessee to reconcile the figures as well furnish a plausible explanation as to the space occupied by it during the impugned AY and submit adequate documentary evidences in support of the same. After considering the same, the Ld. AO is directed to recompute the total income of the assessee as per law.” 6.1 Facts being identical, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above issue and restore the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to follow the order of the Tribunal for the AY 2009-10 delineated at para 6 hereinbefore.