Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (2) TMI 629

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mpugned order submits that intra-bank transfer amounting to Rs.11,11,34,154/- was required to be deducted whereas by mistake, only Rs.9,45,56,790/- has been deducted. It is found that this fact of wrong deduction of the amount of Rs.9,45,56,790/- has been accepted by the Revenue also in their grounds of appeal. The appellant's contention is Rs.9,45,56,790/- has been wrongly deducted instead of deduction of 11,11,34,154/-. There is no evidence available on record regarding deduction of Rs.11,11,34,154/-, pertaining to intra-bank transfer, as claimed by the appellant. Thus, the reconciliation of the deduction needs to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, for the purpose of re-quantification of the taxable value, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Road, Lajpath Rai Sarani, Kolkata - 700 020 (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant") is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 2013, having a registered office at Kolkata. The appellant is inter alia engaged in providing management and business consultancy to various clients. 2. A Show Cause Notice dated 25.07.2014 was issued to the appellant inter alia demanding Service Tax of Rs.1,45,86,836/- (inclusive of cess) for the period from 2008-09 to 2011-12. The Notice also proposed to deny irregularly availed CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.3,19,598/-. 2.1. The said Notice was adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Kolkata vide the impugned Order-in-Original No. 58/COMMR/ST-II/KOL/2015-16 dated 29.02 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the department has not identified the taxable services on which they are liable to pay service tax. The demand has been confirmed mechanically on the basis of information available in their bank statements. In this regard, the appellant has relied upon the decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [(2016) 66 taxmann.com 56 (New Delhi - CESTAT)], wherein it has been observed as under: - " While revenue may not be required to prove case with mathematical precision, it does not mean that revenue can simply presume that all receipts/payments are towards taxable services and abdicate its responsibility to establish case on principle of preponderance of probability Revenue is required to identi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... icating authority has discussed all the narrations of bank deposits in detail and has re-quantified the demand basically on three grounds, namely, by deducting the amount of Rs.7,13,32,608/-, considered to be not related to the taxable income against provisioning of taxable service; by deducting an amount of Rs.9,45,56,790/-(reflected in deposit in account No. 031205004184), being the amount of intra-bank fund transfer from account No. 031205002945; and by deducting the taxable income reflected in the ST-3 Returns of the assessee during the material period. 4.1. He submits that the ld. adjudicating authority, while considering the total bank deposit of the assessee during the material period, had not considered the amount of Rs.9,45,56,790 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the entire bank deposit and then subtracted the amount collected and reflected in the appellant's ledger while raising the demand. However, it is observed that the appellant while referring to paragraph 18 of the impugned order submits that intra-bank transfer amounting to Rs.11,11,34,154/- was required to be deducted whereas by mistake, only Rs.9,45,56,790/- has been deducted. We find that this fact of wrong deduction of the amount of Rs.9,45,56,790/- has been accepted by the Revenue also in their grounds of appeal. The appellant's contention is Rs.9,45,56,790/- has been wrongly deducted instead of deduction of 11,11,34,154/-. 6.1. We find that there is no evidence available on record regarding deduction of Rs.11,11,34,154/-, perta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates