9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1055X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Ld. CIT(A) had categorically stated that no services were rendered by the assessee to M/s ERA Construction Ltd. in order to earn consultancy income. These two crucial findings of the Ld. CIT(A) were not controverted by the Revenue before us. We find that said sum of ₹ 2,27,51,586/- had already been offered as consultancy income in the books of U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. and there cannot be double taxation of the same in the hands of the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly deem it fit not to interfere in the same. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. - ITA No.1300/DEL/2017 - - - Dated:- 23-1-2020 - Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri M. Bala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The only effective issue that emanates from the grounds of Revenue is as to whether an addition in the sum of ₹ 2,27,51,586/- on account of undisclosed consultancy fee could be assessed in the hands of the assessee herein. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that there was a search and seizure action conducted on u/s 132 of the Act in the hands of the assessee on 16/09/2011 which got concluded on 17/09/2011. The assessee is main promoter and Chairman and Managing Director of U. K. Paints group of companies, the flagship company in the U. K. Paints India Ltd. This group has overseas business concerns also. M/s U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. is on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch was raised by M/s U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. for USD $ 515909 (equivalent to ₹ 2,27,51,586/-) on unrelated Indian company M/s ERA Construction India Ltd. This invoice was duly impounded on 16/09/2011 from the office premises of the U.K. Paints Ltd. at 38, DDA Commercial Complex, Zamrudpur, at the time of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act on the said concern. We find that the assessee had duly submitted that this invoice had been duly recorded and accounted in the books of M/s U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. prior to date of search and seizure itself. Accordingly, the assessee had submitted before the AO that the said invoice which was impounded during survey conducted on 17/09/2011 in the office premises of U.K. Paints (Overseas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act and not u/s 153A of the Act. 6. We find that the Ld. AO disregarded all these contentions in the assessment and proceeded to make the addition in the hands of the assessee for the very same sum and completed the assessment u/s 153A of the Act. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had categorically observed that the Ld. AO had not conducted any enquiry to ascertain the facts as to who had actually rendered services to M/s ERA constructions in order to derive the income of ₹ 2,27,51,586/-. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) had directed the Ld. AO to conduct further enquiry in the remand proceedings. We find that in the remand report, the AO had categorically submitted that no documentary information was pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e search. The distinction made by the appellant is hypertechnical. To my mind, this constitutes evidence recovered in the course of the search. Having said that, it docs however look like the document in question is only an invoice which has already been recorded in the books of U.K. Paints Oversea Ltd. Nothing in the document per se suggests that the document was false or that the income pertains to Shri Kuldip Singh Dhingra and not to U.K. Paints Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Therefore this document cannot be said to be incriminating itself. The only other material relating to this addition is the statement of Sh. U.S. Bharana, MD of the lira Constructions group. This statement was recorded on an independent sur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urse of survey in the office premises of the U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. suggested that the services were rendered only by U. K. Paints Overseas Ltd. and not by the assessee herein. He had also stated that this invoice had already been accounted in the books of U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. much prior to the date of search and survey. Hence this document cannot be said to be of incriminating nature to be used in the search assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had categorically stated that no services were rendered by the assessee to M/s ERA Construction Ltd. in order to earn consultancy income of ₹ 2,27,51,586/-. These two crucial findings of the Ld. CIT(A) were not controverted by the Revenue before us. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
