TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that AO wanted to know about commission and syndication fees only which he might have noted from computation of income wherein the assessee had claimed deduction a sum of Rs.57,36,986/- being out of earlier year expenses. AO did not enquire about the guarantee fees paid to M/s Religare Holding Ltd. and M/s Oscar Investment Ltd. and neither the assessee explained it. The contention of Assessee that adequate enquiry was conducted by the AO during course of original assessment proceedings is not correct. Though break up of expenses of finance charges and syndication fees was available with the AO yet he did not raise any question regarding the reasonability and genuineness of expenses. The written submissions filed before AO on dated 20.12.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oid ab initio. The appellant craves leave to alter, amend, and or withdraw all or any of the grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessment in this case was finalized u/s 143(3) vide order dated 10.11.2008. The proceedings u/s 263 was initiated by CIT vide issue of show cause notice u/s 263 dated 4th September, 2009. The CIT in his show cause notice has alleged that following three payments made by the assessee has been allowed by the Assessing Officer without checking the reasonableness of expenditure and without investigation/verifying any evidence for actual rendering of services. He further observed that the payments were made to related parties within the mea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it report and as a part of computation of income. The Ld AR also took us to pages 3-12 of paper book wherein reply to show cause notice was placed. In view of the above, the Ld AR argued that detail of all these expenses were there before Assessing Officer and Assessing Officer had examined that during assessment proceedings. Continuing his arguments he further stated that a total sum of Rs.95 lakhs was paid as syndication fees in assessment year 2005-06 against which only Rs.37,63,014/- was claimed as proportionate share of expenses and rest of Rs.57,36,986/- was claimed in the current year. He further took us to page 37 of the paper book and invited our attention to para 2 of the letter dated 20.12.2007 addressed to Dy. CIT during assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 70 of paper book wherein the assessee had filed detailed submissions against the show cause notice. He further argued that M/s Oscar Investment Ltd. was not a related party as it had already sold its shares in the assessee company. Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 (Del.). The Ld AR further stated that the above judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment in 320 ITR 561. Reliance was also placed in the case law of JP Srivastava Sons, Kanpur v. CIT 111 ITR 326 holding that where entire material was placed before Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment and Assessing Officer applied his mind and accepted the view of assessee but did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,096/- and had not fully explained the further payment of Rs.33,06,000/- and Rs.77,14,000/-. He further argued that Assessing Officer neither raised any question on rest of items and nor the assessee submitted anything and hence there was no enquiry by the Assessing Officer and the assessee had explained only part of syndication fees and guarantee commission was not explained at all. Continuing his arguments, the Ld DR argued that no paper has been brought on record which could prove that any syndication was made and more over the companies to whom payments were made were under the same management and further argued that detail of interest indicates that assessee had not completely availed NCDs. He further argued that M/s Religare Holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he material available on record. We find that Assessing Officer had completed assessment u/s 143(3) and vide questionnaire dated 29th August 2007, copy placed at page 40 of paper book had asked vide question No.9 regarding detail of commission and syndication fee with nature of services rendered and assessee vide reply dated 20th December, 2007 vide para 2 on page 37 of paper book had replied to that query. The Assessing Officer asked for commission and syndication fees and the assessee had replied only towards explaining Rs.57,36,986/- which was part of earlier year expenditure of Rs.95 lakhs. It is further observed from the reading of questionnaire that Assessing Officer wanted to know about commission and syndication fees only which he m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
