TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pport the claim that expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, we feel it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the AO for deciding afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee may produce all the documents to substantiate its claims to satisfy the conditions under section 37. Accordingly, the ground of the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 6503/Del/2012 And ITA No.4141/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2018 - SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Department : Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR For The Assessee : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv.; Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Sh. S.C. Aggarwal, CA ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These appeals by the Revenue are directed against two separate orders dated 30/10/2012 and 30/04/2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-VI, New Delhi [in short the Ld. CIT-(A) ] for assessment year 2009-10 and assessment year 2010-11 respectively. In both these appeals, one common issue is involved and, therefore, both these appeals were heard together and disposed off by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch included directors of the company. According to him, the assessee company was avoiding dividend distribution tax by resorting to distribute dividend in the form of bonus or commission. The Ld. CIT-(A), however, allowed the appeal of the assessee following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself in assessment year 2007-08. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT-(A) is reproduced as under: . It is further notices that identical issue was also examined by the Ld. CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi in the appellant s own case for the assessment year 2007-08, wherein following the decision of the Hon ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Bony Polymers (P) Ltd., 36 SOT 456 additions were deleted. Since there is no change in the facts in the relevant assessment year, respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon ble Tribunal, the addition is directed to be deleted. 3.1 Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that in assessment year 2007-08, the Tribunal has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh, accordingly he submitted that issue in the year u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t no evidence has been filed in respect to rendering the services of Shri Sanjay Mehta who is a Director of the Company. It is also seen that whatever the evidences were filed, they were before the CIT(A). They were not sent to the Assessing Officer for his comments. Though the Department has not raised any ground against filing additional evidence before CIT(A), however, we are of the view that this is the onus on the assessee to prove that services have been rendered by Shri Sanjay Mehta. Though Ld. AR has heavily contested that all the relevant evidences were filed, however, he could not brought any evidence that what clarification or evidences were filed before the Assessing Officer in respect of claim that services has been rendered. 3.4 We note that in assessment year 2007-08, no evidences were filed by the assessee in respect of the services rendered by the directors. In the year under consideration also no such evidences have been filed before the lower authorities or before us. Thus, respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal (supra) we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh with the directions identical to what has been gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mally incurred for the client work. The assessee submitted that in some cases, all the OPE could be charged/recovered in full from the clients but in some cases depending on the contracts with the client in other circumstances, less or no expenses might be recoverable or actually recovered. The assessee further submitted that it tracks the OPE separately for the purpose of invoicing to the client and debit such OPE to a separate expense head in the profit and loss account and the amount which was not recovered/recoverable at the end of the year from the client out of the OPE, were shown as reduction from the fee income for the year. The assessee also submitted that expenditure was incurred in the course of carrying out services. The assessee further submitted that it has paid fringe benefit tax (FBT) on the OPE as its own expenses and which has not been disputed. 4.4 In view of the submission, the Ld. CIT-(A) deleted the disallowance and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4.5 Before us, the Ld. DR submitted that no evidence as the services were rendered wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, has been submitted by the assessee either before the lower authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
