9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... never provided at any stage to the assessee. The addition in respect of ADM (Agency Debit Memo) has been made based upon entirely incorrect understanding of facts. ADM is an expense for the company and is not in the nature of income. Hence if the contention of the ld AO is accepted, then difference between ADMS entries found in IATA and not recorded in Busy software would result in increase of expenditure and not sales. This itself proves the fallacy in understanding of the entire gamut of the case by the ld AO and also proves that the additions have been made without any cogent material and without any basis. There is no dispute that the ld AO during assessment proceedings has not carried out any independent investigation and solely relied upon the appraisal report for making the addition and no details regarding mode and method of computation of suppressed sales are available, the same has been confirmed in the remand report furnished. In the absence of basic details like the method and mode of computation and PNR wise details of suppression of sales and absence of mode of receipt of the alleged suppressed sales, the addition made is not justified. No infirmity in the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 27.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "ld. AO"). 2. Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset, there is a delay in filing of appeals by the revenue by 7 days for the Asst Years 2017-18, 2014-15, 2013-14 and 2012-13. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition, the delay is hereby condoned and appeals of the revenue are admitted for adjudication. 4. The first identical issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CITA was justified in deleting the addition made on account of suppression of sales for the years under consideration. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The relevant facts are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of online travel portal for flight, hotel and bus booking through its website "www.easemytrip.com". During the year under consideration, services provided by the assessee company include domestic and internation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was difference between the amounts of sales as found in portal data and accounting software BUSY. The PNR Wise Sales was higher in Portal Data as compared to accounting software Busy for various assessment years as tabulated under:- A.Y. Portal Data Sales Busy ERP sales Difference No. of PNR 2012-13 1,67,00,000 1,37,00,000 30,00,000 1023 2013-14 2,43,00,000 2,07,00,000 36,00,000 1055 2014-15 2,78,00,000 2,32,00,000 46,00,000 1026 2015-16 2,99,00,000 2,35,00,000 64,00,000 1440 2016-17 7,12,00,000 6,65,00,000 47,00,000 6340 2017-18 3,08,00,000 2,78,00,000 30,00,000 1467 Total 20,07,00,000 17,54,00,000 2,53,00,000 12351 The Ld AO also quoted 10 instances wherein the difference in sales was worked out at Rs 39,740/- to justify the aforesaid addition of Rs 2,53,00,000/- for all the years put together. B. The ld AO in the order observed that on comparing PNR/Ticket No. booked in portal with PNR/Ticket No. booked in Busy server, it was found that in some cases tickets shown as booked on portal were not shown as sales in Busy server. The total addition made on this account for the six years was Rs. 13,24,00,000/- In the assessment order, only 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the 6 years. These instances never formed part of the show cause notice dated 15/12/2019 issued during the course of assessment proceedings. Hence to buttress the same, the assessee furnished the purchase and sales invoices before the ld CITA in support of the contentions of the assessee to prove the point that the third party invoices do not reveal any discrepancy at all and hence it becomes all the more necessary to understand the basis of arriving at the figure of addition made by the ld AO. This point was appreciated by the ld CITA and accordingly a remand report was sought for from the ld AO. The ld AO furnished the remand report dated 09-12- 2021. The relevant portion of the remand report furnished by the AO is quoted as under:- "During assessment proceedings, the assessee had sought back up details of data along with working copy of amount arrived in relation to the suppression of sales. Accordingly, a letter was written to DDIT (Inv.), Unit-4(2), New Delhi for clarification and for seeking the working copy of the amount arrived as proposed in the addition in the case of Easy Trip Planners Pvt. Ltd. In response to the same, email was received from the office of DDIT (In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... online sale of tickets. This is evident from Para 38 of the appellate order. c) From the remand report of the ld AO, it is abundantly clear that while making the addition, the ld AO did not have any evidence in hand. The addition was made based on appraisal report of the DDIT (Inv). Further the DDIT (Inv.) himself did not have any evidence against the assessee. The DDIT (Inv.) relied upon the work of E&Y and they also did not have any evidence. This proves that the addition was made without any application of mind and without any cogent material. This is evident from Para 40 of the appellate order. d) The law requires the ld AO to reach a conclusion after independently examining the facts and the provisions of laws in force. Being a quasi-judicial authority, the ld AO is supposed to independently verify the facts and take a decision. However, in the instant case, the ld AO did not carry out any investigation (as there was no evidence) and reach a conclusion independently. This is evident from Para 41 of the appellate order. e) Even if indeed, there was evidence, then why the same was not made available to the DDIT (Inv.) or the ld AO. The entire addition has been made based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine and the ultimate consumer. There is a one-to-one correlation between the tickets purchased from the airline and sold to the customer. Under such business structure, there is no possibility of sales of tickets outside the books of accounts leading to alleged suppression of sales. Since the sales were done electronically online then if the same has been received in some bank account, then how the same was accounted for in the books of accounts. If the sales were received in a separate bank account, then the same has not been brought on record. The receipt of suppressed sales in a different bank account is not possible since the entire payment towards sale will be credited in a single bank account and it is not possible to receive the proceeds of sales in 2 separate bank accounts. The data taken from IATA has been compared with Busy data, but the IATA data was never provided at any stage to the assessee. The addition in respect of ADM (Agency Debit Memo) has been made based upon entirely incorrect understanding of facts. ADM is an expense for the company and is not in the nature of income. Hence if the contention of the ld AO is accepted, then difference between ADMS entries found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as submitted that since the method and mode of computation of disallowance of excess commission paid was never confronted to the assessee, the same may be called from the ld AO to enable assessee to furnish pointed and specific reply. Submission of the assessee was forwarded to the ld AO for his remand report. The ld has furnished his remand report dated 09-12-2021. 16. After considering the remand report and submissions made, the findings of the ld CITA are summarized as under :- a) From the contents of the remand report, it emerges that the working for computing the quantum of disallowance is not available with the ld AO. This is evident from Para 56 of the appellate order. b) The basis adopted in the assessment order for making the disallowance defies logic. The assessment order states that the normal rate of commission charged was 5%, but there are instances where commission charged from the assessee was more than 10%, the assessment order concludes that the commission paid in excess of 10% is being disallowed. But no instances have been given in the assessment order or the remand report for the same. This is evident from Para 57 of the appellate order. c) The order is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
