TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 920X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en recorded in para B on page 2 of the assessment order. Under such circumstances, it becomes patent that the amount of advance subscription cannot be subjected to tax in the year of receipt. We, therefore, overturn the impugned order on this issue and order for the deletion of addition. Addition of professional fees paid by the assessee to Mr. Sagnik Goswami - CIT(A) invoked the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) for sustaining disallowance at 50% of the amount paid to Mr. Sagnik Goswami - Held that:- How the disallowance has been sustained by the ld. CIT(A) at 50% is not understandable. It can be seen from the impugned order that Mr. Sagnik Goswami earlier worked with companies like GTC Industries, American Express Bank, Lord Krishna B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scription income along with other creditors. On being called upon to explain as to why this amount be not charged to tax, the assessee contended that it was in the nature of advance subscription and, hence, not chargeable to tax. The assessee further submitted that it was following mercantile system of accounting and similar advance subscription received in the preceding year was offered for tax during the year under consideration. Not convinced, the Assessing Officer made addition for this sum despite noticing that similar addition made by the CIT(A) for the preceding year was deleted in the first appeal. The Assessing Officer refused to accept the ld. CIT(A) s order for the preceding year on the ground that the Revenue could not prefer a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year of receipt. We, therefore, overturn the impugned order on this issue and order for the deletion of addition. 5. The only other issue raised in this appeal is against the sustenance of disallowance of ₹ 12 lac out of total disallowance of ₹ 24 lac made by the AO from professional fees paid by the assessee to Mr. Sagnik Goswami. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee paid a sum of ₹ 25 lac and odd as Professional fee to one Mr. Sagnik Goswami. On being called upon to justify the payment, the assessee submitted that Mr. Sagnik Goswami is a relative of the Director, but, competent and well experienced. A comparative chart of the professional fee paid to other professionals and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer, vide his order dated 21.11.2014, has not made any addition towards payment to Mr. Sagnik Goswami. Similar is the position in respect of the order passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-08 giving effect to the Tribunal order. A copy of such order dated 09.10.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer has also been placed on page 67 onwards of the paper book in which no such addition has been made. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the Department has accepted the genuineness of payment to Mr. Sagnik Goswami and its eligibility for deduction for the immediately preceding assessment year, the facts of which are mutatis mutandis similar to those of the instant year. 7. It can be seen fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
