TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lready paid advance to sister concern M/s. ICMC Corporation Ltd. and why no interest was charged to that advance, the assessee has not given any explanation before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and even before the Tribunal. The assessee had changed its stand and bifurcated the amount of ₹ 25,00,000/- with various expenses. The assessee has not explained as to how it has bifurcated without giving any proper explanation. Simply because the sister concern had offered ₹ 25,00,000/- to tax, on that basis, the assessee cannot escape tax liability, particularly when the sister concern has not paid any tax by filing NIL return. We are of the opinion that the assessee has failed to discharge its burden cast up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer to decide the issue involved in this appeal de novo in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has fixed the case for hearing after serving notice and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has pointed out that the assessee company has executed work order received from M/s. HFCL for preparation of ducts for laying telecommunication cables and the gross receipt from such work was ₹ 76,15,995/- and after claiming various expenses, the assessee company has shown a net loss of ₹ 1,85,200/- from the business. As per the profit and loss account filed by the assessee, the main expenses claimed by the assessee company are as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ister concern M/s ICMC Corporation Ltd @ 15% p.m. on the balance in the ledger account on account of certain expenses borne by M/s ICMC Corporation Ltd on behalf of the assessee, but on the other hand, the assessee has not charged any interest on advance of ₹ 28,80,000/- given to the same sister concern. When these facts are brought to the notice of the assessee, it again changed its submission and stated that the claim of expenses at ₹ 25,00,000/- is actually expenses payable to ICMC Corporation Ltd under the following head: (a) Supervision charges ₹ 8,00,000/- (b) Interest ₹ 5,00,000/- (c) Commission on turnover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. CIT(Appeals) and it was submitted that the commission of ₹ 25,00,000/- paid to assessee s sister concern was already offered for taxation and therefore, the same cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has strongly supported the order passed by the authorities below and submitted that the assessee has changed its stand frequently before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and therefore the ld. CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 5. We have heard both sides, perused the materials on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The assessee has been carrying on the business of civil construction work and underta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 5,00,000/- ₹ 5,00,000/- In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has doubted the commission paid on the ground that the assessee has been changing its stand frequently. Apart from that the audit report does not speak about the commission payment of ₹ 25,00,000/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that the payment of ₹ 25,00,000/- is bogus payment and disallowed. Before the ld. CIT(Appeals), it was submitted that the sister concern has already paid tax and therefore, no tax can be imposed in the hands of the assessee. From the above, we find that first of all the assessee was not sure about the major payment made to its si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
