HEURTEY PETROCHEM SA ( PROJECT OFFICE),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 03.08.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03.08.2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are two appeals under consideration. Both these appeals are filed by the assessee involving the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. Since, the issues raised in these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are clubbed, heard combinedly and disposed of in this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in the following paras of this order.

by the assessee in its appeal for the AY 2011-12 and submitted that the core issue relates to the treatment to the contract of the assessee with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL) and the taxability of the receipts relatable to the off-shore services on par with the receipts connected to the Indian territory. Revenue taxed all such receipts, whereas the assessee seeks inclusion of such off-shore receipts from the taxability under the statute / DTAAs. Bringing our attention to the paper book filed on 11.7.2016, Ld Counsel for the assessee prayed for admitting the additional evidences placed in the paper book at Sl. No. 17, 19, 20, 21, 24 to 30 relating to the contract related documents / evidences / bills, Ld Counsel for the assessee demonstrated their relevance to the off-shore services and sought for the exclusion of such receipts from chargeability of tax under the Indian laws / DTAAs. Further, he brought our attention to the reasons justifying non- submission of the same before the Revenue Authorities at the relevant point of time. Without going into the merits of the issue, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that these additional evidence will go to the root of the matter and therefore, it is the in the interest of justice, such evidences should be admitted and prayed for remanding the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication keeping all the issues open to the assessing authorities.

4. On the other hand, Ld DR for the Revenue relied on the orders of the AO and the DRP.

5. On hearing both the parties, we find that the AO’s decision in treating both the inland and the off-shore services of the assessee on par with each other has genises in composite contract. The evidence cited above are found to be relatable to the conditions of contract; sample invoices; Detailed Letter of Acceptances (DLOAs); documents relating to import of goods; insurance policy of such goods; relevant billing schedules; other evidence relating to rendering of services outside India etc. After going through the same, we find, admitting such valuable evidence is in the interest of rendering of justice. Therefore, in our view, the assessee’s plea