Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1506 - AT - Income TaxAddition for work–in–progress - Year of assessment - consultancy services - unbilled portion of the work relating to various projects executed during the relevant previous year was required to be accounted for by the assessee as work–in–progress - HELD THAT:- AR has furnished before us relevant documentary evidences which demonstrate that not only the assessee has offered the disputed amount as income in assessment year 2008–09, but has also claimed the corresponding TDS in the said assessment year. It is also a fact on record that the tax rate for assessment year 2007–08 and 2008–09 are the same. That being the case, whether the amount is taxed in the impugned assessment year or in assessment year 2008–09, will have no effect on the Revenue. If the amount is taxed in the impugned assessment year, it has to be excluded from the income of the assessee in assessment year 2008–09, since, it has already been assessed in that assessment year. This is due to the settled legal principle that the same income cannot be assessed in two assessment years. Taxability of reversal of professional fee - Failure on the part of the assessee to co–relate the reversal of entries - HELD THAT:- Assessee has filed fresh material reconciling the differences pointed out by the AO and the CIT(A) after considering the observations of the AO in the remand report, the submissions made by the assessee and evidences filed was satisfied that the assessee has properly reconciled / co–related the reversal of entries. The learned Departmental Representative has not brought before us any material to controvert the factual finding of the CIT(A) insofar as it relates to the amount of ₹ 17,66,393. Therefore, to that extent we uphold the decision of CIT(A) Ground raised is dismissed. Admission of additional evidence - violation of rule 46A - HELD THAT:- It is evident from the impugned order of the CIT(A), every single piece of evidence furnished by the assessee in the course of appeal proceedings were sent for verification / examination of the AO and the AO after verifying these evidences has furnished a remand report. The remand report furnished by the assessee was taken note of by the learned CIT(A) while disposing off the appeal of the assessee. CIT(A) has strictly complied to the provisions of rule 46A of the rules insofar as it relates to admission of additional evidence. Therefore, we do not find merit in the ground raised. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Disallowance of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (DTT) subscription - HELD THAT:- The assessee has paid the subscription to run and manage its business activity more effectively, efficiently and profitably. Moreover, it is a fact on record that similar subscription was paid by the assessee in the preceding as well as succeeding assessment years. Notably, on verifying the scrutiny assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) for the assessment years 2006–07, 2009–10 and 2010–11 and 2011–12, copies of which have been submitted before us, it is observed that no such disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in the aforesaid assessment years. There being no difference in facts brought to our notice in the impugned assessment year, applying the rule of consistency also, the expenditure claimed by the assessee has to be allowed, since, the nature of expenditure as revenue has been accepted by the Department in all other assessment years except the impugned assessment year. Disallowance of the professional fees - addition sustained by CIT(A) basically for the reason that the failed to lead proper evidence to reconcile the reversal of entries - HELD THAT:- Assessee has enclosed in the paper book a credit note issued in favour of Ruchi Soya Industries ltd for ₹ 67,34,400 as well as bill raised subsequently for ₹ 6,73,440 to prove its claim. However, the assessee has not brought on record any account confirmation from Ruchi Soya Industries ltd. Therefore, in our view, the claim of the assessee has to be cross verified by making necessary enquiry with Ruchi Soya Industries ltd. That being the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, we restore it to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds raised are allowed for statistical purposes.
|