TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse of setaside proceedings the AO shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee to produce all necessary documentary evidence in support of its claim under section 10 A. Thus this ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.6444 Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 23-11-2016 - SHRI R.C.SHARMA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Sh. Mayur Kishandwala and Ms Khusboo -AR For The Revenue : Sh. M.C. OM Nageshen DR Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER : 1. This appeal u/s 253 of Income Tax Act ( Act ) is directed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) 31, Mumbai, dated 11 July 2014 26 for AY 2008-09. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: (i) The learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that liability of ₹ 6,34,12,696/- due to Paradigm Geophysical Sdn Bhd Malaysia has ceased to exist on 31 March 2008 and hence confirming the addition of AO of this amount to the total income of assessee in the relevant assessment year. (ii) Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner (Appeal) erred in confirming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame was not considered by them. With regard to the notes of account the ld AR of the assessee argued that the contention regarding the AS requirement under the companies act was not disputed by the revenue authorities. On the other hand ld DR for revenue supported the order of authorities below and would argue that the remission letter submitted by the assessee does not contain any date. The assessee has used this document as per their convenience. The remission of liability/transaction is between the associated enterprise who had a joint economic interest. The assessee has adopted a device by taking the liability easily to subsequent assessment year with a view to avoid the tax. 4. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and gone through the orders of authorities below. The AO while framing assessment noticed that assessee book Management Fees and other expenses charged by Paradigm Geophysical Malaysia (PMG) (group company) prior to Financial Year 2007-08 amounting to ₹ 8,44,05,218/-which was outstanding as on 31 March 2008. In August 2008 PGM allegedly informed the assessee that outstanding amount is no longer payable and it has been waived off. The affect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terially affecting the determination of amounts relating to conditions existing at the balance-sheet date. In view of this specific provision in the accounting standard itself, even if the contention of the appellant that waiver took place after balance-sheet, the adjustment was required to be made by filing computation of income along with the return. Contention of the appellant is therefore not acceptable. ii. The appellant further stated that it has provided documents which prove the liabilities stood as on 31.03.2008 and the same was waived in August 2008. In this regard it is mentioned that assessing officer on page 3 of his order has referred to the undated letter which is being relied upon by the appellant. A copy of this letter has been produced before me during the course of appellate proceedings. On perusal of the same it is noted that this letter does not bear the date and hence cannot be entertained as evidence that the waiver took place after 31.03.2008. Further, in the said letter there is no reference of meeting held in June/July 2008. Despite affording opportunity to the appellant during the course of assessment proceeding and also during the appeal proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts of the appellant s case. In view of these facts and legal position, contention of the appellant is rejected. v. The appellant without prejudice submitted that out of the management fees of ₹ 8,44,85,218/-an amount of ₹ 2 099 2522/-was already disallowed by the assessee under section 40(a) in AY 2007-08 on account of non-deduction of TDS and hence same has resulted into double disallowance. The AO is directed to verify this fact from records and in case the same is found correct, appropriate relief may be allowed to the appellant after due verification of facts. 5. With the above observation, we have noticed that the ld Commissioner (Appeal) consider all relevant material and granted adequate relief available to the assessee. The various decisions placed on record by ld AR of the assessee are factually different, ratio of which are not applicable on the peculiarities on the facts of the present case. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order for our interference. 6. The assessee in alternative raised Ground No. 2 in the present appeal that ld Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of AO in not allowing proportionate deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
