SAI WORKING SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Ground No.1(a) & (b) raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition made on account of suppressed receipt in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. According to Ld.AR, the addition involving an amount of Rs.7,53,806/- is relating to service tax component which was received in subsequent year and paid in subsequent year, showing the proof which Ld.AR drew our attention to page No.12 of the Paper Book. Ld.DR did not controvert the same. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of Ld.AR & Ld.DR, we deem it proper to remand the matter to AO for his verification whether the said amount is really a difference in tax component which was admittedly not shown by the assessee during the year under consideration. Thus, Ground Nos.1(a) & (b) raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Ground No.2(a), (b) & (c) raised by the assessee relating to disallowance of expenditure on payment of supervision charges in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. The main contention of the Ld.AR is that the same expenditure was allowed by the Revenue in the past and subsequent years and drew our attention to page No.40 for assessment order relating to AY 2012-13 and page No.46 for AY 2013-14 placed in Paper Book. Ld.AR argued that the Revenue cannot take a different stand during the year under consideration contrary to the stand taken in subsequent and earlier years. We find at page Nos.40 to 49, assessment year were 2012-13 & 2013-14 wherein we find no objection whatsoever been raised by the AO in respect of the claim of the assessee regarding supervision charges. Ld.DR did not controvert the same by bringing on record a contrary view in past and subsequent assessment by the ITAT or Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, in view of such circumstances, the order of CIT(A) in confirming the impugned addition is deleted. Thus, Ground Nos.2(a), (b) & (c) raised by the assessee are allowed.

Ground No.3(a) & (b) raised by the assessee challenging the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of Rs.34,66,502/- on account of non- furnishing of TDS details.

Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. The contention of the Ld.AR is that the AO added the said amount for non- furnishing of TDS details and non-explanation to summons u/s 133(6) of the Act is bad and arbitrary. Ld.AR drew our attention to page Nos. 34 & 35 of the Paper Book which clearly shows that the assessee replied in response to the summons u/s 133(6) of the Act wherein he furnished details of transactions of Nikhileswar Nayak between 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. The said documents clearly shows an office of the AO received the same on 20.02.2014. Therefore, the view of AO is bad in adding the said amount on account of non-furnishing of details and non-explanation to summons u/s 133(6) of the Act. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) in confirming the same is set aside and the addition made thereon is deleted. Thus, Ground Nos.3(a) & (b) raised by the assessee is allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.01.2019.