9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not even produced by the assessee before the learned CIT(A). In our considered view and in the interest of justice, we are inclined to restore the matter to the file of the A.O. to de-novo decide the issue’s on merits and hence we set aside the order of learned CIT(A). The A.O. shall forward to the assessee all the information which was obtained by the AO in pursuance of notices issued u/s 133(6) to these two parties namely M/s. Carat Media Service Private Limited and M/s Ogilvy and Mather Private Limited. The assessee is directed to produce all the relevant evidences and explanations before the AO in its defense to justify and defend its claims and contentions to reconcile the difference. Needless to say proper and adequate opportunity of hearing shall be granted by the AO to the assessee in accordance with principles of natural justice in accordance with law - I .T.A. No.2541/Mum/2010 - - - Dated:- 24-8-2016 - SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri A. Ramachandran For The Assessee : Ms. Parvathy Ganesh ORDER PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member This appeal, filed by the Revenue, being ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,568/- The A.O. issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to M/s Carat Media Services India Pvt. Ltd. asking for the details of services rendered, ledger account of the assessee in their books and other relevant details. The reply was received from the said concern whereby it confirmed that total amount billed to the assessee company during the financial year 2005-06 was ₹ 1,45,06,967/- therefore , the assessee was asked to explain the difference of ₹ 82,02,601/. In response, the assessee simply filed the revised statement of purchases adjusting the amount accordingly. Further, the assessee has increased the miscellaneous purchases below ₹ 3 lacs to ₹ 3,05,24,989/- from ₹ 1,68,77,393/- without explaining or filing any supporting evidence thereof. It was observed by the AO that the assessee has still an amount of ₹ 24,77,891/- due to M/s Carat Media Services India Pvt. Ltd. under the head purchases. The assessee has also changed the items purchased from TV Commercial Advertisement to just purchases . The said concern Carat Media Services India Private Limited in their reply has only confirmed payment for advertisement exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purchases aggregating ₹ 1,68,77,393/- made by assessee s four units and while preparing these details the total credits aggregating to ₹ 2,00,15,295/- comprising ₹ 1,20,53,345/- appearing in the ledger account of Carat Media Service Pvt. Ltd. and ₹ 79,61,950/- appearing in the ledger account of Oglivy Mather Pvt. Ltd. were wrongly included in the details of purchases of Baddi Unit . Thus, in this process the intra-unit purchases amounting to ₹ 1,71,80,708/- made by Baddi unit from Unit-III, Daman was omitted from the figure of purchases submitted in respect of Baddi unit. Thus, it was submitted that the incorrect details of purchases amounting to ₹ 1,71,80,708/- wrongly classified as under:- Carat Media Service Pvt. Ltd. ₹ 1,20,53,345/- Oglivy Mather Pvt. Ltd. ₹ 79,61,950 Branch transfer Unit III Daman Rs. (28,34,587) Total ₹ 1,71,80,708/- The A.O. did not appreciate that there was no difference in the unit wise purchase except in the case of Baddi uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 53,345/- as total of credits shown initially as purchases and again ₹ 1,06,56,223/-(however as per ld CIT(A) the correct amount is ₹ 1,07,50,844/- ) as actual expenses incurred on advertisement, and compared the same with the details submitted by Carat Media Services Private Limited. Similarly, the A.O. considered twice the advertisement expenses and legal expenses once ₹ 79,61,950/- as total credits and again ₹ 33,24,000/- and ₹ 22,39,000/- incurred respectively as advertisement expenses and legal expenses, and compared the same with the details submitted by O M. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the AO observation in para 2 on page 4 of the assessment order that the assessee has submitted the revised statement of purchases adjusting the miscellaneous purchases below 3.00 lacs to ₹ 3,05,24,980 and still an amount of ₹ 24,77,981/- is shown as purchase from Carat Media Services Private Limited is not discernible from record. Further, it was observed by learned CIT(A) that the observation of the AO that the assessee has entered bogus entry under the head purchases in order to reduce its taxable income is not correct when the AO has not dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore using the said material against the assessee. The ld. Counsel submitted that if opportunity is given, the assessee will be able to reconcile the differences in the accounts of these two concerns. 10. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the material available on record. We have observed that the issue in the appeal is in context of differences in account balance with respect to expenses incurred by the assessee on account of advertisement, legal and professional charges and purchases made from two parties namely M/s Carat Media Service Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Oglivy Mather Pvt. Ltd. as are reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee vis- -vis in the books of accounts of the two parties . The assessee was asked to explain the said differances. The A.O. issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to the two parties i.e. M/s Carat Media Service Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Oglivy Mather Pvt. Ltd. asking information regarding the services rendered to the assessee. The information were received by the AO but the information obtained by the AO from these two parties were not forwarded/confronted to the assessee for comments and rebuttal.The assessee was prejudiced by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
