9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 15,60,876. 4. Brief facts are, the assessee a company is engaged in the business of providing Corporate Finance Services, Bid Support Services and Vendor Assistance. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 30th September 2008, declaring loss of Rs. 78,30,700. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that an amount of Rs. 15,63,101, was debited to Profit & Loss account under the head Operation, Administration and Other Expenses on account of membership and subscription called for the necessary details. On examining the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer found that the deduction claimed represents payment made towards membership and subscription of a director in certain club and hotel. He, therefore, called upon the assessee to explain why the expenditure should not be disallowed as it provides enduring benefit to the assessee, hence, are in the nature of capital expenditure. Though, the assessee objected to the proposed disallowance, however, the Assessing Officer rejecting the claim of the assessee disallowed the amount of Rs. 15,60,876 by treating it as capital expenditure. Assessee challenged t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gress either in the Balance Sheet or Profit & Loss account. To verify the value of work done by the assessee in the financial year 2008-09, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to furnish the professional fees ledger for the month of April 2008. On a perusal of the said ledger, he found that the assessee had received an amount of Rs. 1,48,39,217, from various concerns in the month of April 2008. The Assessing Officer observed, the assessee was providing due diligence services to various corporate entities and private equity clients across industries for their financial restructuring activities. He observed, the activity of the assessee requires substantial time to complete / submit the reports to its clients. Therefore, according to the Assessing Officer, the professional income received by the assessee in the month of April 2008 has to be considered as the value of work done during the financial year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer further observed that for such work done the assessee must have claimed relatable expenses in financial year 2007-08. Therefore, he called upon the assessee to explain why the income shown in April 2008 should not be treated as income of the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal has upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). In this context, the learned Authorised Representative placed on record the following orders of the Co-ordinate Bench passed in assessee's own case:- i) ITA o.4135 and 4136/Mum./2015, dated 15.03.2017 for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2011-12; and ii) ITA no.4422/Mum./2016, dtd. 14.03.2018 for A.Y. 2010-11; 14. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. As could be seen from facts emanating from record, the dispute is confined to the proper assessment year wherein the professional income of Rs. 1,48,39,217, is to be assessed. The Assessing Officer has assessed the said income in the impugned assessment year on the presumption that the work relating to such professional fee was completed in the impugned assessment year. Whereas, it is the stand of the assessee that the bills relating to such professional income was not only raised in the subsequent financial year but the assessee has also received the professional income in the subsequent assessment year. Therefore, assessee has accounted for such income and offered it to tax in the subsequent assessment year. Notably, on a perusal of the orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or obtaining necessary information from the concerned parties and could do no more and has also filed an affidavit before the assessing officer asserting that it has not received any such income, it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to conduct enquiries either under section 133(6) or under section 131 of the Act with the concerned parties to obtain necessary information with regard to the payments appearing in the AIR information / ITS data. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) held, without making any enquiry to ascertain the correct fact, the Assessing Officer cannot make the addition simply on the basis of AIR information. Relying upon certain judicial precedents, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) ultimately deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 19. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer. He submitted, it is the duty of the assessee to reconcile the discrepancies arising out of the AIR information. Assessee having failed to do so the amount was correctly added to the income of the assessee. 20. The learned Authorised Representative supporting the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (Appeals) on this issue. This ground is dismissed. 24. In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed. ITA no.277/Mum./2016 Assessment Year 2010-11 25. The only issue raised by the Revenue relates to the deletion of addition of Rs. 38,94,599, made by the Assessing Officer on account of un-reconciled AIR/ITS data. 26. Facts relating to this ground are more or less similar to the ground no.1, raised by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA no.276/ Mum./2016. In the present case, on the basis of ITS/AIR data it was found that the assessee has not offered an amount of Rs. 38,94,599, as income of the year. In response to the query raised by the Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted that the bills were raised by its sister concern and not by it. However, the Assessing Officer rejecting the submissions of the assessee, added back the amount of Rs. 38,94,599 as income of the assessee. Assessee challenged the addition before the first appellate authority. 27. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee having due regard to the facts on record deleted the addition. 28. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee qua the materials on record found that the assessee has duly accounted for all the income received during the year in its books of account. Further, he found that the assessee has made an effort to reconcile the discrepancies found as per AIR information and to an extent has also reconciled them. However, after exhausting all options available, since, assessee could do no more, it has asserted before the Assessing Officer that it has not received the un reconciled income as per AIR information. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed, even after such submissions of the assessee the Assessing Officer made the addition simply on the basis of AIR information without conducting any enquiry on his own to ascertain whether the assessee has actually received such income. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed, AIR data is only a piece of information on the basis of which further enquiry was required to be made. Thus, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that when the Assessing Officer has failed to bring any corroborative evidence, apart from the AIR information, to establish the fact that the assessee has received the income as per AIR information, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
