9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2016 - - - Dated:- 31-8-2018 - Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM For the Assessee : Shri S. Joshi, FCA For the Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT, DR ORDER Per P.M. Jagtap, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) 4, Kolkata dated 15.07.2016 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the addition of ₹ 34,56,797/- made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of the alleged concealed consultancy fees. 2. The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of rendering consultancy services related to exportimport ores. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 14.10.2003 declaring a total income of ₹ 72,03,329/-. The assessee company during the year under consideration had provided consultancy services to a foreign company namely, Sudamin Metal GmBH and had reported receipt of foreign exchange earnings from the said company. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted all the bills raised by it on foreign company for commission and also filed Foreign Inward Remittance Certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, an opportunity was afforded by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee and availing the same, the following submissions were made on behalf of the assessee in support of its claim that the addition of ₹ 34,56,797/- made by the A.O. was not sustainable: i. During the relevant year, the appellant ,a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 was engaged in providing consultancy services to foreign enterprise, Sudamin Metal Gmbh (Sudamin), and an Indian entity lspat Metallics lndia Ltd.,(lspat) in connection with steel plant raw materials. It derived income towards consultancy services fees in foreign currency, from foreign entity, and in domestic currency from Indian entity. It maintained banking account with HSBC and being a foreign currency earner was entitled to maintain Exchange Earner's Foreign Currency (EEFC) in US Dollar (USD) and domestic currency account Indian Rupees (lNR). ii. The assessee was incorporated during the relevant financial year and took over the running business of a partnership firm Rawmet Resources. It's first accounts for the relevant financial year 2OO2-03 was drawn from 1st January, 2003 till 31st March, Thus the income o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-03/08 6865.97 RCPL/02-03/09 12721.76 RCPL/02-03/10 12603.99 Total USD 77474.01 Number dated Amount as per FIRC Corresponding invoice no in FIRC 341334 60848.24 3, 5 344815 8837.87 8 346514 81025.13 9, 10 Total USD 150711 Considering the above difference between the impugned FIRCs (USD 150711.24) and impugned invoice (USD 77474.01), the Ld. ITO concluded that the assessee had concealed income of USD 73,237.23, i.e. INR 34,56,797/-. ix. However, in coming to the above conclusion the Ld. ITO totally ignored the following facts which were brought on record and necessary evidence submitted to her in the course of assessment proceedings - a) That the assessee has raised invoice on Sudamin for total USD 304,031.16 against which it received payment of USD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Statement of reconciliation page nos 1 to 2 b. Copy of invoice and corresponding FIRCs page nos 3 to 24 C. Copy of EEFC bank statement page nos 25 to 30 d. Copy of INR bank statement page nos 31 to 41 e. Copy of ledger account Commission-INR page nos 42 to 43 Commission-USD page nos 44 f. Copy of ledger account Sudamin page nos 45 to 48 Sudamin-FY 2003-04 page nos 49 g Financial Statement FY 2002-03 page nos 50 to 64 In view of the above, the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsultancy fees. As regards the first excess amount of Rs. US$ 15565.95 received by the assessee, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the total amount of US$ 60848.24 was actually received by the assessee against Invoice No. 3, 5 6 but in the relevant FIRCs issued by the bank, reference was made only to Invoice No. 3 5. He has invited our attention to the copy Invoice No.6 placed at page no 32 of the Paper Book to show that the excess amount of US$ 15565.95 as pointed out by the A.O. was actually received against invoice no. 6 and since the said invoice was duly accounted for by the assessee, there was no concealment of any income from consultancy fees. He has submitted that similarly the amount of US$ 81025.13 was received by the assessee against Invoice No. 9, 10, 11 and 12 but in the relevant FIRCs, a reference was wrongly made by the bank only to the invoice no 9 and 10. He has invited our attention to the copies of invoice no 11 and 12 placed at Paper Book No. 34 and 36 to point out that the said invoices raised during the year under consideration on 25th March, 2003 were duly accounted for by the assessee company. He has contended that the remaining am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
