9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces field by the assessee before the ld. CIT (A) and the remand report thereof, we hereby set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to reconcile the mismatch of TDS vis- -vis the returned income of the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - SA No. 44/Del/2020 (in ITA No. 8353/Del/2019 And ITA No. 8353/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 28-1-2020 - Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vice President And Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. For the Revenue : Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Stay Application: The assessee was carrying on business of a custom clearing agent and acted as C F agent. The assessee had filed its return of income for AY 2015-16 on 05.10.2015 declaring total income of ₹ 40,27,460/-. The case of the assessee was selected under limited scrutiny on account of mismatch in sales turnover. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by Assessing Officer that as per Form 26AS the total receipts by the assessee were ₹ 6,60,65,680/-. It was further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) dated 13.12.2017 by the Assessing Officer ( the AO ) and also addition/disallowance made therein is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(Appeals) ) has grossly erred in upholding the action of AO in assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹ 5,19,20,530/- as against the returned income of ₹ 40,27,460/-. 3. That, the AO/CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that this is a case of limited scrutiny and hence the addition made of ₹ 4,78,93,068/- is illegal and bad in law and without jurisdiction. 4. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO/CIT(A) has erred in making/upholding the addition on the basis of alleged difference of receipt shown in Form 26AS and financials/return of income amounting to ₹ 4,78,93,068/-. The AO/CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the reconciliation along with all evidences/details and documents as filed by the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 62,09,805/- and other income of ₹ 19,62,807/- totaling to ₹ 1,81,72,612/- are disclosed in Profit and Loss A/c. 7. During the year under consideration, assessee acted as C F agent and provided services to various clients. Accordingly, invoices were raised in this behalf. The invoice issued by the assessee comprised of following components: a. Custom Duty, Air Freight, Dock / Port Charges b. Crane / Fork Lift, Survey / Insurance / License Prem c. D.O. Charges / Detention, Customs Documentation d. Local Transport, Loading / Unloading, Repair / Packing e. Examination Expenses, Print out Charges, f. Others Charges, License Charges g. Agency commission 8. Out of above mention components only Agency commission was the revenue of Assessee Company and all the remaining components were basically reimbursement to the Government Department/ outside agencies which the assessee company pays after recovering the same from clients. Such reimbursements were neither treated as income or expense in the books of accounts. These were directly paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 437,977,396 C= A-B LESS: CUSTOM DUTY 405,906,684 D DOCK CHARGES 12,732,470 E FREIGHT/TRANSPORTATION: 27,114,964 F D.O. CHARGES: 12,982,145.25 G EXAMINATION EXPENSES:- i) License expenses 646,610 ii) Bond debiting 360,333 iii) Crain/ Forklift 823,55 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commission paid to M/s. Chopra Associates 50,000 W/ off/Deduction by Clients (Ester Industries Ltd) 56,113 W/ off/Deduction by Clients (Majestic Auto Ltd.) 8,986.20 W/ off /Deduction by Clients (GVB Forwarder) 2,342 W/ off/Deduction by Clients (India Mat Pro) 2,527 W/ off /Deduction by Clients (RTC International) 1,854 W/ off/Deduction by Clients (Pooja Forge) 1,685 W/ off /Deduction by Clients (Sandeep Industries) 29,533 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee company, it is observed that amount of ₹ 6,52,05,181/- (shown as payment/ amount credited in the form 26AS) on which TDS was deducted by the client of the assessee company on its services, in this regard, it is noticed that the amount of ₹ 6,52,05,181/- was part of the invoices having the value of ₹ 48,81,45,306/-. In the reconciliation of invoice value with the receipts recorded in the From 26AS, it is observed that aggregate value of invoices issued during the year as per the said reconciliation statement is ₹ 48,81,45,306/-. In comparison thereto, total value of income reported as per Form 26AS is ₹ 6,52,05,181/-. In this regard, assessee submitted before your goodself an invoice wise reconciliation citing reason for difference between the revenue as per each invoice vis-a-vis the corresponding entry in form 26AS which is placed on paper book page no. 9722- 9866. It is observed that each party has followed different mechanism of deducting tax at source and considered different components of invoice for the purpose of deducting TDS. Some parties have deducted tax at source only in respect of the agency commission; so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
