TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired to examine in detail to ascertain the factual position to arrive at the logical conclusion to ascertain whether the payment received from M/S Varsity Education was income or only the advance amount. During the appeal hearing also the Ld.A.R did not furnish the details such as the date of cancellation, reasons for cancellation, whether work order has been executed till the date of cancellation, the charges received, the compensation payable in case of unilateral cancellation etc. Thus issue is required thorough examination with the books of account of the assessee as well as the company. Therefore, we remit the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to re-examine the issue in detail and decide the issue afresh on merits. Thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. - ITA No. 240/VIZ/2018, C.O.No. 72/VIZ/2018 (Arising out of ITA No. 240/VIZ/2018) - - - Dated:- 17-7-2019 - Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon ble Judicial Member And Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon ble Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri C. Subrahmanyam,FCA. For the Department : Shri D.K. Sonawal CIT DR ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments, he found that the assessee had entered into the agreements to execute the works of ₹ 41,29,88,248/-, out of which one of the concern was M/s. Varsity Education Management Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad (in short, company ). Though as per the contract agreements the value of the gross receipts worked out to ₹ 41,29,88,248/-, as per Form 26AS, the gross receipts were only ₹ 41,01,43,176/- and in the profit loss account the assessee had admitted the gross receipts of ₹ 34,89,17,821/-. Thus, the AO found short admission of gross receipts to the tune of ₹ 6,40,70,427/- (₹ 41,29,88,248 ₹ 34,89,17,821). Since there was difference in gross contracts as per contract agreements, as per Form 26AS and the profit loss account, the Assessing Officer called for explanation of the assessee to explain the difference. In response to this, the assessee submitted that M/s. Varsity Education Management Pvt. Ltd. (company) has paid the advance of ₹ 6,13,67,900/- and the same was returned due to cancellation of the agreement. The assessee further stated that M/s. Varsity Education Management Pvt. Ltd. deducted tax at source on the advance amount, hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A).Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed reconciliation of contract receipts. The ld. CIT(A) had observed that M/s. Varsity Education Management Pvt. Ltd. has confirmed the refund of advance given to the assessee and from the bank account, it was seen that a sum of ₹ 6,07,86,000/- was debited to the assessee account towards the payment made to M/s. Varsity Education Management Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed that the Assessing Officer did not dispute the fact that the amount of ₹ 6,07,86,000/- was refunded by the assessee. The total advance given by the company to the assessee was ₹ 6,13,67,900/-, out of which the assessee had refunded the sum of ₹ 6,07,86,000/- and the amount of ₹ 5,81,900/- was remained with the assessee. The company has deducted TDS of ₹ 6,14,000/- on the advance of ₹ 6,13,67,900/- which was claimed by the assessee as credit in her return of income. Hence, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the higher amount of balance retained or the TDS retained by the assessee from the amount of advance. Accordingly, confirmed the addition of ₹ 6,14,000/- relati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the cancellation of the agreement and receipt of the sum of ₹ 6.07 crores, therefore, argued that the assessee did not render any service and due to cancellation of the agreement, the assessee has to refund the entire amount, hence, requested to the delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer and uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A). 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. 10. In the instant case, the assessee had entered into agreement for execution of work order with M/s. Varsity Education Management Pvt. Ltd., for rendering various services such as transportation of labour services, cooking food services, clearing labour services etc. as per the detailed list furnished in the agreement. The assessee has to render the service by virtue of work order given to her dated 01/04/2012 which was also effective from 01/04/2012. According to the agreement, M/s.Varsity Education Management Pvt. Ltd., (company) paid an amount of ₹ 6,13,67,900/- on various dates from 02/08/2012 to 18/09/2012. After a lapse of seven months from the date of receipt, the assessee returned the sum of ₹ 6,07,86,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to perform to the satisfaction of the Company the services which are to be provided under this Work Order; III. Becomes unfit to perform the services under this Work Order or is incapable of performing them adequately for a consecutive period of one month; IV Has a receiving order made against him or their properties, or makes any arrangement with his creditors. 10.2. As per clause 2 of the work order, it is deemed to be commenced on 01/04/2012 and shall continue until 30/06/2012, initially for a period of 3 months and renewable with mutual consent for further period or periods. Annexure-1A is relating to transport labour services, Anneuxre-1B is relating to transport labour service charges. As per Annexure-1B, the transport charges for transportation of services is ₹ 35,06,413/- per month from April 2012 and May 2012 and ₹ 7,53,230/- for June 2012. Similarly, Annexure-2B related to the cooking food preparation labour charges which is payable at ₹ 1,33,04,138/-per month for April 2012 and May 2012 and ₹ 1,68,70,005/- for June 2012. As per Annexure-3B, cleaning labour charges are payable at ₹ 81 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
