9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duction under the Act. We, therefore, confirm the findings of the authorities below and dismiss Ground of the appeal of assessee. Disallowance of relation to sundry balances written off during the year, even though the same is allowable under section 37(l) - Held that:- The draft order was sent to assessee-company. The assessee-company filed its objections before the DRP, but the Order of the A.O. was confirmed on the reasons that the amount is incurred on salary advance and other payments. Therefore, same are not in the nature of trading loss and also of bad debts. Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of DRP for considering the issue afresh. The DRP noted in their findings that amount have been incurred on salary advance and other payments which are neither in the nature of trading loss nor bad debts, therefore, Order of the A.O. was found correct. No merit in this ground of appeal of assessee. The assessee at the initial stage could not file any reply on this issue. The DRP has given a specific finding that this amount have been incurred on salary advance and other payments which are neither in the nature of trading loss nor the bad debts. Learned Counsel for the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o certain employees seconded by the AE to the Appellant which demonstrated that the expenses were actually incurred by the AE and were incurred wholly and exclusively for the benefit of the business of the Appellant, and were reimbursed on cost basis by the Appellant. 9. The learned AO/TPO/DRP erred by ignoring the evidences and documents submitted by the Appellant in regard to the reimbursement of travelling and general office expenses paid by the Appellant which demonstrated that the expenses were actually incurred by the AE and were incurred wholly and exclusively for the benefit of the business of the Appellant, and were reimbursed on cost to cost basis. 10. The learned AO/TPO/DRP erred by concluding that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the salary costs, travelling and general office expenses were incurred for the benefit of the Assessee and no independent party would pay for the same. 4. The A.O. noted in the assessment order that as per Form No.3CEB filed along with the return, the assessee during the year had international transactions with the Associated Enterprises/concerns. Hence, in order to determine the Arms Length Price ( ALP ) in relation to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RP, relief to that extent have been allowed. However, some of the evidences could not be filed before DRP/TPO by the assessee-company, which are now filed before the Tribunal through a petition for admission of the additional evidences vide petition dated 06.03.2018. 5.1. The assessee in the petition for admission of the additional evidences submitted that additional evidences are in the form of Form No.16 and Form No.12BA of seconded employees with regard to reimbursement of salary costs paid by the petitioner in relation to certain employees seconded by the A.E. to the assessee and back-up documents/third party invoices with regard to reimbursement of travelling and general office expenses in relation to certain employees seconded by the A.E. to the assessee. It was, therefore, submitted that Form No.16 and Form 12BA of the seconded employees along with back-up documents with regard to travelling and general office expenses are now filed before the Tribunal, may be admitted for disposal of the appeal. It is also stated in the application that evidences placed by the assessee-company is crucial for judicious disposal of the objections. The assessee-company also explained that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional documents from Chinese Language to either in Hindi or English have been filed. Since the Learned Counsel for the Assessee have not been able to explain as to how the additional evidences are relevant to the matter in issue and what are the contents thereof, therefore, it is, difficult to believe that the documents filed along with petition for admission of additional evidences have any relevance to the matter in issue. It is also not explained why these additional evidences were not filed before the authorities below despite earlier the matter have been remanded by the Tribunal to the DRP. The Hon ble jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jawaharlal Jain (HUF) 370 ITR 712 considered the additional evidences which were filed after six years of the assessment. It was observed that since no credible evidence and no explanation of delay have been given, therefore, rejection of the additional evidences was found justified. The Hon ble jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rishi Sagar 393 ITR 214 held that the additional evidences have been rightly refused as it is not explained why the same were not filed before the A.O. We may note that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dditional evidences. The petition for admission of the additional evidences is accordingly rejected. 6.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee was not able to point out any error in the Order of the DRP/A.O. on this issue and merely submitted that in case additional evidences are admitted, the matter in issue could be remanded to the DRP for further adjudication. It would mean that on rejection of the petition for admission of additional evidences, assessee has nothing to say on this issue. No infirmity have been pointed out in the Orders of the authorities below. Therefore, ground Nos. 1 to 10 of the appeal of Assessee are dismissed. 7. On Ground Nos. 11 to 13, assessee challenged the addition of ₹ 80,99,113/- on account of disallowance of loss foreseeable on project. The grounds are reads as under : 11. The Ld. AO/DRP, on the facts and circumstances of the case, grossly erred in making disallowance of loss foreseeable on project amounting to ₹ 80,99,113/-. 12. The Ld. AO/DRP, on the facts and circumstances of the case, erred in making disallowance of loss foreseeable on project amounting to ₹ 80,99,113/- made by the appellant, by ignoring trea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch loss in a project, the same would be allowed to it in the assessment year when the loss is actually crystallized and such event has not taken place in the assessment year under appeal. The DRP accordingly upheld the addition. 9. After considering the rival submissions, we do not find any merit in this grounds of appeal of assessee. Learned Counsel for the Assessee merely submitted that assessee has given treatment in the accounts as per Accounting Standard-7 issued by ICAI. However, Learned Counsel for the Assessee was not able to rebut the findings of the DRP in this regard. It is not in dispute that the claim was made on mere estimate. It was also not disputed that the loss have not actually been crystallized during the assessment year under appeal. It is also not explained as to how the foreseeable loss have been calculated and what was the justification. It is well settled law that if assessee would have incurred actual loss, then the same would be allowed in the year when such loss have been incurred and crystallized. The DRP has specifically noted that even the loss have not taken place in assessment year under appeal. These findings of the authorities below have not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
