M/s Maxpro Engineers Pvt ltd , Bangalore V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(3), Bangalore

ITA 1426/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5973 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KARUPPUSAMY S R
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH SMC-C, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1426 (BANG) 2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 15) M/S. MAXPRO ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., APPELLANT GOLDEN ENCLAVE, CORPORATE BLOCK, B 1, 4 TH FLOOR, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE 560017. PAN. AAGCM4547B VS THE ITO, WARD 4 (1) (3), BANGALORE. RES PONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI KARUPPUSAMY S. R., ADDL. CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 02-08-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03-08-2018 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) 4, BANGALORE DATED 20.02.2018 FOR A. Y. 2014 15. 2. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO. 1 IS GENERAL. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2, HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THIS GROUND, THIS IS THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 529,312/- MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE DRAWN MY ATTENTION TO PARA 7.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT (A) AND POINTED OUT THAT AS PER THIS P ARA, THIS IS THE FINDING OF CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED PROOF OF PA YMENT BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE HIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND IF AN OPPORTUNITY IS PROVIDED, THE PROOF OF PAY MENT WILL BE FURNISHED. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CI T (A). 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONS IDERING THE FACTS IN ITS ENTIRETY, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION WITH THE DIRECTION THAT T HE ASSESSEE SHOULD FURNISH THE ITA NO. 1426(BANG)2018 2 PROOF OF THIS PAYMENT AND THEREAFTER THE LEARNED CI T (A) SHOULD PASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. 4. REGARDING GROUND NO. 3, HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THIS GROUND, THIS IS THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 158,747/- MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE D RAWN MY ATTENTION TO PARA 8.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT (A) AND POINTED OUT TH AT IN THIS PARA, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS REPRODUCED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE WHICH INCLUDES THIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS BROUGHT BEFORE CIT (A) ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND REQUEST WAS MADE TO CIT (A) TO ADMIT THE SAME UNDER RULE 46A BUT IN THE NEXT PARA I.E. PARA NO. 8 .3, THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THIS MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED TO CIT (A) FOR FRESH DECISION AF TER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONS IDERING THE FACTS IN ITS ENTIRETY, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO AND RESTORE THIS MATTER ALSO BACK TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION WITH THE DIRE CTION THAT THE CIT (A) SHOULD ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE LEARNED CIT (A) SHOULD PA SS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO BOTH SIDES. 6. REGARDING GROUND NO. 4, HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THIS GROUND, THIS IS THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 57,000/- BEING FOREIGN TRIP EXPENSES OF MRS. ROY, WIFE OF GENERAL MANAGER MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE SUBMI TTED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE CONSIDE RED. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND I FI ND THAT A CATEGORICAL FINDING IS GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) THAT THIS EXPENDITURE IS NOT I NCURRED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ITA NO. 1426(BANG)2018 3 ASSESSEE. HENCE, I FIND TO REASON TO INTERFERE IN T HE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE AND HENCE, THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE D ATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (A. K. GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED: 03.08.2018. MS* COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.