9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the respondent/assessee, but he was not able to answer this question. Notwithstanding the above, there is no doubt that, given the material placed on record, the onus cast on the respondent/assessee was, in fact, discharged. Thus no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA For the Appellant Through: Mr Prashant Meharchandani, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Akshat Singh, Standing Counsel. For the Respondent Through: None. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): 1. These appeals concern Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 [ITA No.749/2023] and AY 2013-14 [ITA No.759/2023]. 1.1 Via the instant appeals, the appellant/revenue seeks t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent cause. The reasons given, i.e., processing through official hierarchy and compliance-fulfillment , in themselves, appear vague. This alone should have been enough to dismiss the appeals. 5. However, since Mr Prashant Meharchandani, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, vehemently argues that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, CIT(A) ] and the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the respondent/assessee did not discharge its onus in proving that ATS Infrastructure Ltd. [in short, ATS ] did, indeed, render services to it, we are inclined to hear the appeals on merits. 6. Briefly, the moot point that arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether the managem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT(A) in ITA No. 759/2023: As regards the documentary evidence to support the provision of actual services rendered by ATS to the appellant company, the appellant submitted that the Assessing Officer grossly erred in holding that no such documentary evidence was filed by the appellant company. The appellant has drawn my attention to the replies furnished during the course of the assessment proceedings, more specifically the letter dated 25th Feb, 2016 and March 8, 2016 to canvas that substantial documents were produced before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. The appellant placed following documents in the paper book to support its contention: a) Copy of MOU with ATS. b) Copy of acknowl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o note that, insofar as AY 2014-15 is concerned, the CIT(A) has recorded the following material facts: As regards the documentary evidence to support the provision of actual services rendered by ATS to the appellant company, the appellant submitted that the Assessing Officer grossly erred in holding that no such documentary evidence was filed by the appellant company. The appellant has drawn my attention to the replies furnished during the course of the assessment proceedings, more specifically the letter dated Nov 8, 2016, Dec 2, 2016 and March 14, 2016 to canvas that substantial documents were produced before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. The appellant placed following documents in the paper book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
