9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act,2008, with retrospective effect from 1.4.2005. Also perusuing the case laws relied upon by the AR of GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd. (2010 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and Industrial Development Bank of India (2006 (7) TMI 248 - ITAT BOMBAY-H) in this regard. Thus tax deducted at source were not applicable in case consideration. Addition made on the basis of information received in AIR - Held that:- Restore the issue to the file of AO to make inquiries with the said parties whether the transactions indeed pertain to assessee. In case of mistaken reporting, the same cannot be added in the hands of assessee. Keeping in mind that assessee has discharged its onus of reconciling most of the amounts reported which are duly accounted, direct AO to enquire from the above two parties about the nature of transactions and if they pertain to assessee, enquire from assessee and do the needful after examining the facts. If the transactions does not pertain to assessee, there is no need to make any addition, just because the information came through AIR. - ITA No.7648/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 5-4-2013 - B Ramakotaiah, AM and S T M Pavalan, J. For the Appellant : Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06-07 in ITA No.3275/Mum/2011 dated 04.07.2012 following the order for AY 2000-01 (ITA No.8276/M/04). The order of the ITAT is as under: 2. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found by the Assessing officer (AO)that the appellant had claimed depreciation of Rs 21.16 lakhs at the rate of 25% on W.D.V of intangible assets amounting to Rs. 84,64,248/-.Following the assessment orders for the A.Y.2000-01, he disallowed the claim made by the assessee. In the appellate proceedings First Appellate Authority (FAA) found that the issue under consideration was decided against the assessee vide order 09-05-2008(ITA No.8276/Mum/2004) of the H Bench of the ITAT. Following the said decision he dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 2.1. Before us, Authorized Representative (AR) fairly conceded that issue was decided against the appellant. We find that in Para 7 to 11 of the above referred order, ITAT has discussed the issue in length and upheld the order of the CIT(A). As the issue decided by the H Bench is same as the issue for the AY under consideration, so, respectfully following the above mentioned order, we decide Ground No.1 against the assessee. 3.1 Respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll of the party is booked." 19.1. After considering the submissions made by the appellant AO held that same was not acceptable because expenses under consideration was liable to TDS and were squarely covered by the provisions of chapter XVIIB of the Act. He was of the view that once the assessee was debating the P L account, it automatically was crediting the party account based on matching principle. 19.2. Before us, AR submitted that amount in question was year-end accounting provision to book, expenditure incurred, but in respect of which there was no obligation to either pay or to deduct tax at source is because no income had accrued to the payee, that no order had been passed under section 201 of the act holding, the appellant to be an assessee in default. Therefore, no disallowance could be made under section 40a(ia). He referred to page number 265 of the paper-book that gives details of provision on which TDS was not paid. As per the AR bills for the said expenditure were not received during the year under consideration. As per the AR, the appellant company would make year-end provisions based on services rendered by various lenders/professionals. These provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount that was disallowed in earlier year was allowed in that year the alternate claim made in ground 3 need not arise for consideration. Ground No.3 is allowed. 6. The last ground is on the addition made on the basis of information received in AIR. 6.1 Briefly stated, according to the order, with respect to transactions carried out on the PAN of assessee was obtained from the system and following transactions are not found to be reconciled with the books of account of assessee: Receipt from Hari Shankar Singhania Rs.47,140 Receipt from Bhushan Steel Ltd Rs.42,090 Total Rs.89,230 Assessee was given an opportunity to reconcile this information with its books of account. However, it has filed to reconcile the above two amounts and therefore, the amount of Rs.89,230 was added to the total income as unaccounted income. 6.2 It was submitted before the CIT (A) that assessee denies that the above amount is its income and therefore AO was in error in adding the same without first obtaining necessary information and evidence from the said parties in support of the position that the amounts reflected by them aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find sufficient force in the above submissions of the assessee. Admittedly, the revenue has not controverted the submissions of the assessee before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings as well as remand proceedings that all professional fees received are by way of cheques and all such cheques have been deposited in his Oriental Bank of Commerce Account, South Extension Branch, New Delhi (vide letter addressed to Assessing Officer on 8.10.208). Therefore, in absence of any contrary material brought by the revenue authorities that the assessee has received amount more than the professional fees than what has been declared by him, no addition should have been made. It is also a fact that the professional income declared by the assessee far exceeds the professional fees as per AIR information. There may be so many reasons such as low deduction of tax, non-deduction of tax, deduction on account of reimbursement of expenses etc., for which the figure as per the AIR may not tally with the income declared by the assessee on account of professional fees from various clients. Further, it has categorically been explained by the assessee that it is not practically possible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
