DILIP SITARAM BHAMARE,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN

During hearing, Shri Jitendra Jain, ld. counsel for the assessee, invited our attention to the letter dated 03/02/2007, wherein, the issue involved relates to taxability of the amount of Rs.1,16,80.421/- out of the composite amount of Rs.4,05,00,000/- received from Sitson India Pvt. Ltd. during Assessment Year 2010-11. It was explained that the said amount was disallowed in the hands of Sitson India Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that the assessee has not offered the whole composite amount of Rs.4,05,00,000/- for taxation in the same Assessment Year i.e. 2010-11 but partly spread in subsequent Assessment Year. The spread was claimed to be purely based upon the after sale services rendered during the extended warranty period of the boilers and equipment supplied to various parties although both the assessees were being taxed at the same tax rate in the current and each of the subsequent years. The crux of the argument is that the facts were not properly appreciated. The ld. DR, Shri Purushottam Kumar, though defended the addition but argued that if any decision is to be taken then the situation demands that it may referred back to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) so that the facts may be property appreciated.

2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the totality of facts and the circumstances narrated in the letter dated 03/02/2017 in para -5, it has been mentioned that in the case of Sitson India Pvt. Ltd., the disallowances made were meritoriously deleted after referring to and relying upon the same paper book, whereas, in the case of the assessee at page-8 (para-12) it was held that no documentary evidence was produced to show that the services were rendered by the assessee during the warranty period. In the paper book No.3, the copies of various technical report, joint meeting minutes with customers/parties etc demonstrating that actual technical services were rendered during the extended warranty period. In view of this fact/explanation, we are of the view that the present case of the assessee required fresh examination by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), therefore, we remand this appeal to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to appreciate the facts afresh and decided accordance with law. The assessee be given opportunity of being heard with further liberty to furnish evidence, if any, to substantiate its claim. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.