9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs explained how the receipts as per TDS certificates of Rs. 10,54,03.747/- formed part and parcel of the alleged total freight receipts of Rs. 49,86,94,825/-. 2( ii ) The CIT(A) er red in admi t t ing addi t ional evidence in the course of the appellate proceedings in contravention of the provisions of Rule 46A of the l.T. Rules, regarding the alleged total freight receipts of Rs. 49,86,94,825/- and the alleged income from freight of Rs. 4,54,69,496/-. 2(iii). The CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessee's explanat ion was untenable since the assessee had not clarified as to why only the sum of Rs. 10,54,03,747/- was liable to TDS and not the entire amount of Rs. 49,86,94,825/-. 2(iv). The CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessee had not proved, how the sum of Rs. 10,54,03,747/- formed part and parcel of the sum of Rs. 49,86,94,825/- without there being any supporting evidence therefore. 2(v). The CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessee had not proved how the freight income of Rs. 4,54,69,496/- was arrived at without any verification of the alleged expenses of Rs. 45,32,25,329/- claimed against the freight receipts of Rs. 49,86,94,825/-. 2(vi). The CIT(A) erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the AO has noted the mis-match between the receipt credited to the P/L Account and the receipt as per TDS certificate and accordingly the assessee was asked to reconcile the difference. The assessee failed to reconcile the difference during the assessment proceedings, therefore, the AO has rightly made the addition in respect of difference of Rs. 75,99,593/-. He has further submitted that even the assessee has not explained before the AO that how the amount credited in P/L Account covers the entire receipts shown in the TDS certificates. The ld. DR has submitted that before CIT(A) the assessee has furnished fresh evidence and reconciliation statement which was not put before the AO. Therefore, considering the additional/fresh evidence in the course of appellate proceedings by the CIT(A) without giving opportunity to the AO, has violated the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. Even CIT(A) has not verified the alleged freight income and expenses deducted by the assessee before bringing the amount to P/L Account. Thus, the ld. DR has submitted that in the absence of proper re-conciliation as well as verification of the details CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 2008-09 and submitted that all these years the facts are identical and the AO has not found any mistake or discrepancy in the amount being net income taken to P/L Account. He has supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 3.2 We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The AO has noted the fact that the receipts as per TDS certificates stood at Rs. 10,54,03,747/-. Whereas the income credited in the P/L Account is at Rs. 9,78,04,154/- resulting in a difference of Rs. 75,99,593/-. The AO made additions of differential amount for want of reconciliation on behalf of the assessee . On appeal, the assessee submitted the break-up of receipts and the expenses incurred which is reproduced by CIT(A) at page-4 as under :- Sr.No. Nature of Income Amount(Rs.) Amount(Rs.) Amount(Rs.) 1. Total freight from export(A) 49,86,94,825 Less:Payments a) Export freight 41,74,23,408 b) Central Warehouse and Port Charges 1,01,26,842 c) Brokerage 74,62,948 d) Rebate paid 1,22,41,178 e) Survey charges paid 5,97,708 f) Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt by the assessee . Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any error or illegality in the order of ld. CIT(A qua this issue. 4. Ground No.3 is regarding addition on account of salary paid to MD:- 4.1 The AO noted that the assessee paid salary of Rs. 44,66,000/- to the MD on which no TDS has been deducted. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the said payment by invoking the provisions of section 40A(i) of the Income tax Act. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the assessee is having a branch at US which constitutes an independent PE. The income of the USPE is determined independently and taxed in USA only. The salary to the MD was paid outside India at US for rendering services outside India. Since the MD is a non-resident and has no connection with the assessee's India operation, therefore, the salary income in his hand is not taxable in India. CIT(A) has accepted the contention of the assessee and deleted the addition. 4.2 Before us, the ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has not furnished any record before the AO in support of this claim as well as to show that the services were actually re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
