TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parties, has to render the finding whether the income has really accrued to the assessee company or not. Only after such verification, the addition can be made by the Assessing Officer after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee-company. Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to make de novo assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee company. - Decided partly in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 4447/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2015 - Shri H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. Salil Kapoor Shubham Rastogi, Advocates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act'). iv. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in holding that the accounting treatment by the Appellant is a colourable device for evading taxes without appreciating the fact that the accounting treatment done by the Appellant is in accordance with mandatorily applicable Accounting Standards issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. v. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition made by the learned AO disturbing the regular method of accounting followed by the assessee thereby disregarding the legal position laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rformed for various customers, duly evident from the submissions and copy of invoices submitted by the Appellant. ix. Without prejudice to the ground 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the learned AO of considering total receipts as per Form 26AS as INR 7,41,20,909, as against INR 7,37,70,707 being amount actually reflecting in Form 26AS. x. Without prejudice to ground 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 above, it is submitted that where your honors are of the view that such amount is subject to tax during relevant AY, directions be issued to the learned AO to allow deduction in respect of such amount for the subsequent AY during which the said amount has been offered to tax by the Appellant. xi. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of which no services were performed. However, tax was deducted at source by the payee on payment basis. Therefore, the Assessing Officer directed the assesee company to furnish the confirmation letters from the respective parties, which had not been complied with by the assessee company. Therefore, the Assessing Officer drawn inference that the sum of ₹ 2,01,17,941/- on which tax was deducted at source by one party, namely, M/s Skyline Outdoors Media Pvt. Ltd., which is a sister concern of the appellant, was income of the assessee company, therefore brought to tax. Being aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred before the CIT(A)-I, New Delhi, who after calling remand report from the Assessing Officer, dismissed the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt year 2014-15. It was submitted that the claim for credit during the assessment year 2011-12 may be withdrawn and should be allowed on proportionate basis in the subsequent years. 6.5 On careful consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, I find no substance in the submission of the appellant. This is clearly a case where the appellant by entering into transaction with a related party has evaded tax by not showing the impugned income during the year under consideration i.e assessment year 2011-12 particularly when the group company has claimed the entire amount as deduction from its income of assessment year 2011-12. The argument of the appellant that the transaction is revenue neutral sounds hollow as the appellant has d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etween the income declared by the assessee company and the receipts as per the Form 26AS are on account of advance receipts and advance billing made by the assessee company. In respect of which, no services were rendered and where as the tax was deducted at source by the payer i.e. Skyline Outdoor Media Pvt. Ltd. In support of this contention, he filed copies of the invoices raised. He further submitted that the information contained in Form No. 26AS cannot be the sole basis for making the addition. In support of this contention, he filed copy of the decision of the coordinate bench of ITAT, Delhi in the case of ITO Vs. Sh. Basant Kumar, ITA No. 4679/Del/2012, for AY 2009-10, dated 31st March, 2015. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
