Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU
ORDER This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 08.3.2016 passed by the Ld.CIT(A)-7, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2011-12 on the following grounds:-
1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the mechanical addition of Rs. 28,65,929/-; made solely on the basis of 26AS which stood fully and completely reconciled by inundated evidence; 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 19,91,001/- pertaining to receipt on which payer deducted TD but said amount was written off in Revenue a/c in books and it is never disputed that said amount is realised by assessee; 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 19,91,001/- pertaining to receipt on which payer deducted TD but said amount was written off in Revenue A/cin books, out of which Rs. 827,827/- to current year only for which there can be no dispute.
4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 13,14,590/- being service tax portion which is held by CBDT and Judicial pronouncements that same cannot become part of assessable receipts.
5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not applying the profit rate theory to alleged extra receipts deduced on basis of mere 26AS on basis of overall profitability as it is trite law that only profit element embedded in receipt is taxable. Relief claimed/prayer 6. To hold Ld. CIT(A) wrongly sustained addition merits made by the AO; 7. To apply reasonable profit rate to appropriate alleged extra receipts. 8. Any other relief as deemed fit in circumstances of the case. 2. Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
During the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 134 containing the copy of Bombay High Court decision in the case of Knight Frank (India) Pvt. Ltd. Order dated 16.8.2016; decision of Gujrat High Court in the case of Kanti Auto Fabrication Pvt. Ltd. Order dated 2.2.2016; IOTAT, Kolkata decision in the case of M/s Gurukripa Software Solutions (P) Ltd. Order dated 24.10.2014; Rejoinder filed before CIT(A) dated 5.2.2016 in response to remand report dated 24.9.2015 alongwith Index of Paper Book; copy of remand report dated 24.9.2015; copy of Income Tax order u/s. 143(3) of the Act; copy of Audited Balance Sheet and profit and loss account; copy of letter dated 12.3.2014 filed before ITO, Ward No. 14(3); Copy of reconciliation between 26AS and Recruitment processing charges (Income) Profit and Loss account; Party wise details of book debt written off; copy of ledger accounts and party statement of: American Express India Pvt. Ltd, Auxicoge Infotech Pvt. Ltd, BA Continum Solution Pvt. Ltd, Barclays Shared Services Pvt. Ltd, Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd, EXL Services Ltd, Intelenet Global Services Pvt. Ltd, Jindal Intellicom Pvt. Ltd, Midland Credit Management India Pvt. Ltd., Quatro Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. And Tecnovate Esolution Pvt. Ltd.; Copy of judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Noble & Hewitt(I) (P) Ltd. Dated 10.9.2007; copy of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision dated 9.2.2010 in the case of TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT in Civil Appeal No. 5292 to 5294 of 2003 and CIT vs. Autometers Ltd. On 2.3.2007; copy of Form No. 26AS and Details of Recruitment Income Written off. Ld. Counsel of the assessee also certified that the above documents were available to both the authorities i.e. AO & CIT(A) and no fresh /new evidence is adduced at this stage before the Tribunal and the case laws relied are separate. He further stated that the lower authorities have not considered the vital and legally tenable documentary evidences tendered, as aforesaid and contention raised during the appellate proceedings which goes to the root of the matter and are very essential to adjudicate the issue in dispute. In view of the above, he requested that the issue involved in the present appeal may be set aside to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh under the law, after considering all the documents and give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate his case.
On the contrary, Ld. DR opposed the request of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
I have heard both the parties and perused the records. I have gone through the order passed by the revenue authorities especially the impugned order as well as the Paper Book containing pages 1 to 134 having the copy of Bombay High Court decision in the case of Knight Frank (India) Pvt. Ltd. Order dated 16.8.2016; decision of Gujrat High Court in the case of Kanti Auto Fabrication Pvt. Ltd. Order dated 2.2.2016; IOTAT, Kolkata decision in the case of M/s Gurukripa Software Solutions (P) Ltd. Order dated 24.10.2014; Rejoinder filed before CIT(A) dated 5.2.2016 in response to remand report dated 24.9.2015 alongwith Index of Paper Book; copy of remand report dated 24.9.2015; copy of Income Tax order u/s. 143(3) of the Act; copy of Audited Balance Sheet and profit and loss account; copy of letter dated 12.3.2014 filed before ITO, Ward No. 14(3); Copy of reconciliation between 26AS and Recruitment processing charges (Income) Profit and Loss account; Party wise details of book debt written off; copy of ledger accounts and party statement of: American Express India Pvt. Ltd, Auxicoge Infotech Pvt. Ltd, BA Continum Solution Pvt. Ltd, Barclays Shared Services Pvt. Ltd, Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd, EXL Services Ltd, Intelenet Global Services Pvt. Ltd, Jindal Intellicom Pvt. Ltd, Midland Credit Management India Pvt. Ltd., Quatro Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. And Tecnovate Esolution Pvt. Ltd.; Copy of judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Noble & Hewitt(I) (P) Ltd. Dated 10.9.2007; copy of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision dated 9.2.2010 in the case of TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT in Civil Appeal No. 5292 to 5294 of 2003 and CIT vs. Autometers Ltd. On 2.3.2007; copy of Form No. 26AS and Details of Recruitment Income Written off. I find that it was the contention of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the above documents were available to both the authorities i.e. AO & CIT(A) and no fresh /new evidence is adduced at this stage before the Tribunal and the case laws relied are separate. I further find that the lower authorities have not considered the vital and legally tenable documentary evidences tendered, as aforesaid, which goes to the root of the matter and are very essential to adjudicate the issue in dispute.
Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that in this case the issue in dispute needs to be remitted back to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh, as per law.
Accordingly, the issue in dispute is set aside and restored back to the file of the AO to consider the issue in dispute afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also consider all the documents available with the assessee. The Assessee is also directed to submit all the necessary documents before the AO to substantiate his case and fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.