ITO, CHENNAI V. Marcopolo Impex India Private Limited, CHENNAI

ITA 1022/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8854 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N K MOHNOT
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! ' . # , % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICI AL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1022 & 1023/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 & 2011-12) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD-4(1) CHENNAI-34. VS M/S. MARCOPOLO IMPEX INDIA PVT.LTD. 7, LAKSHMI DEVI, SUKHI PARIWAR, SAIBABA LANE, SAIPURAM ECR, INJAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 041. PAN: AABCM4478J ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : MR. N.K.MOHNOT, C.A. /DATE OF HEARING : 11 TH JULY, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 TH JULY, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGGRIEVE D BY THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-8, CHENNAI BOTH DATED 27.01.20 16 IN ITA NO.153/2011-12 & 154/2014-15 PASSED UNDER SECTI ON 143(3) & 250(6) OF THE ACT. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN THESE TWO APPEALS, HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF THE COMMON ISSUE IN B OTH THE APPEALS IS AS FOLLOWS:- 2 ITA NOS.1022 & 1023 /MDS/2016 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCRUED COMMISSION OF `1,48,35,267/- AND `52,49,722/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY BY HOLDING THAT CREDIT FOR TDS IS TO BE ALLOWED ONLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE RESPONDING INCOME IS ASSESSABLE. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LIAISON FOR EUROPEAN CLIENTS TOWARDS PURCHASE MADE BY THEM FROM THE INDIAN SUPPLIER. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF I NCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 & 2011-12 AND THEY WERE TAK EN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED UNDER S ECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 4. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED COMMISSION INCOME OF `1,58,38,490/- AND `1,15,05,5 19/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY AND HAD CLAIMED EXCESS TDS THAN WHAT WAS STATED IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT IT HA D BOOKED ITS COMMISSION INCOME ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT HAD A CCRUED 3 ITA NOS.1022 & 1023 /MDS/2016 DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. HOWEVER, IN T HE TDS CERTIFICATES, THE AMOUNT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WAS SHO WN EVEN FOR THE COMMISSION EARNED IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSM ENT YEARS. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ASSE SSED THE ENTIRE COMMISSION INCOME DECLARED IN THE TDS CERTIF ICATE AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE RELEVANT AS SESSMENT YEARS. 5. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) HELD THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT TDS IS TO BE ALLOWED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE CORRESPONDING INCOME IS ASSESSABLE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF SHRI ANU PALLAVI FINANCE & INVESTMENT VS. ITO REPOR TED IN 131 ITD 205 WHEREIN THE DECISION OF THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PRADEEP KUMAR DHIR V S. ITO REPORTED IN 107 ITD 118 WAS FOLLOWED, . 6. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED IN THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) WHILE AS THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE 4 ITA NOS.1022 & 1023 /MDS/2016 ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER. 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INF IRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BECAUSE HE HAS ONLY FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI & CHANDIGARH BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 15 TH JULY, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( ! ' . # ) ( . ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 15 TH JULY, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF