URAI IMPEX P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(4), MUMBAI

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.11.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10.

The short facts of the case are as under: During the year assessee has paid commission on export sale. This commission is made to M/s. Yohannis Sergawi Asmahegn and Cherinet G Giorigis. The assessee did not deduct the tax at source. The assessee submitted that commission was paid for procuring the order abroad and no services were rendered in India at any time during the year under consideration. Therefore, Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) has made the addition of Rs.3,63,226/-.

The Ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the Revenue authorities

I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. I find that the issue in controversy is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Reclaim and Rubber Products Ltd. 383 ITR 236 (Bom.) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as under: “This Circular of 1969 was admittedly in force during the two assessment years. It was only subsequently, i.e., on October 22, 2009 that the earlier Circular of 1969 and its reiteration as found in Circular No. 786 of 2000 were withdrawn. However, such subsequent withdrawal of an earlier Cir cular cannot have retrospective operation as held by this court in UTI v. P. K. Unny [2001] 249 ITR 612 (Bom). (i) In view of the above, not only the entire issue stands concluded in favour of the respondent-assessee in the present facts by the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular Nos. 23 of 1969 and 786 of 2000 which were in force during the subject assessment years but also by the decision of the apex court in Toshoku Ltd. (supra) in favour of the respondent-assessee. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in the question framed for our consideration. Accordingly, question (a) is not entertained.”