EAPT Solution (India) Private Limited, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1436/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7383 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92

Judgement Text

, / , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A/SMC, CHENNAI , ! BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ITA NO.1436/MDS/2016 ' # $%# / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 EAPT SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 8/2, NEW NO.23, CANAL BANK ROAD, DASTURBA NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI 600 020. [PAN: AAACN 0398R] VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-II(1), CHENNAI 600 034. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) &' ( ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V.ARUN, ADVOCATE *+&' ( ) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.MUUGABOOPATHY, ADDL. CIT , $ ( - / DATE OF HEARING : 06.03.2017 .% ( - / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.03.2017 /O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6, CHENNAI (C IT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 16.03.2016, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTES TING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R/W S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) DATED 03.09.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006-07. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL C ONCERNS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT PER ITS RETURN OF INCOME BY RECKONING ITS EXPORT TURNOVER AT . 3,09,13,240/-, PER FORM 56, FILED ALONG WITH. THE 2 ITA NO.1436/MDS/2016 (AY 2006-07) EAPT SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. V. DY. CIT ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS, HOWEVER, REFLECTED THE EXPORT TURNOVER AT . 2,99,82,162/- (UNDER THE HEAD EXPORT SALES-EAPT-US). FURTHER, A S UM OF . 28.69 LACS WAS FOUND AS NOT REALIZED AND, THEREFORE, LIABLE FOR EX CLUSION IN RECKONING THE EXPORT TURNOVER. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SAME HAD SINCE BEEN REALIZED, I.E., BEFORE SEPTEMBER 30, 2006. FURTHER, THE DIFFERENCE OF . 9,31,077/- IN THE EXPORT TURNOVER (I.E., . 309.13 LACS . 299.82 LACS) WAS ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL CHARGES, SERVICES IN RESPECT OF WHICH HAD BEEN RENDERED IN MARCH, 2006, EVEN AS THE CORRESPONDING INVOICE WAS RAISED ONLY ON 15.04.2006, EXPLAINING ITS NON REFLECTION IN THE ACCOUNTS FOR T HE YEAR. THE SAME WAS PLEADED FOR INCLUSION IN THE EXPORT TURNOVER AS FOREIGN CUR RENCY IN ITS RESPECT HAD SINCE BEEN RECEIVED ON 19.07.2006. THE SAME WAS FOUND NOT ACCEPTABLE BY THE REVENUE AS THE AMOUNT HAD BEEN SHOWN IN THE ASSESSE ES ACCOUNTS AS AN ADVANCE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEA L. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. THE REVENUES STAND THAT NO INCOME HAD ACCRUED FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR IN RESPECT OF PROFESSIONAL CHARGES IN-AS-MUCH AS NO EV IDENCE HAD BEEN FURNISHED IN ITS RESPECT (4.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER) CANNOT BE F AULTED. THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT SERVICES IN RESPECT OF PROFES SIONAL CHARGES HAD IN FACT BEEN RENDERED PRIOR TO 31.03.2006, SO THAT THE FACT OF I TS BILLING LATER (ON 15.04.2006) WOULD BE OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE. TWO, WHILE THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMS THE SAME TO BE REALISED BY JULY, 2006, THE REVENUE STATES OF THE S AME BEING REFLECTED AS AN ADVANCE, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REBUTTED. THE T WO ARE MUTUALLY INCONSISTENT. THOUGH THE DATE OF RECEIPT, WHETHER PRIOR TO THE CL OSE OF THE RELEVANT YEAR OR SUBSEQUENT THERETO, IS OF NO RELEVANCE, I.E., AS LO NG AS THE SAME IS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD, IT RAISES A DOUBT AS TO WHETHER BOTH ARE REFERRING TO THE SAME SUM, AS ONLY ONE COULD BE CORRECT. IF THE AMOUNT HA D ALREADY BEEN RECEIVED IN ADVANCE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE SAME BEING REC EIVED LATER IN JULY, 2006. THIS IS A MATTER OF VERIFICATION AND RECORD. WE MAY THOUGH ADD THAT INCLUSION IN 3 ITA NO.1436/MDS/2016 (AY 2006-07) EAPT SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. V. DY. CIT TOTAL TURNOVER (TT) IMPLIES ACCRUAL OF INCOME, SO T HAT ITS INCLUSION IN EXPORT TURNOVER (ET) CANNOT BE DENIED, EXCEPT OF COURSE WH ERE THE AMOUNT IS NOT REALIZED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. AGAIN, THE INC LUSION IN (ET) WOULD, AS A CONCOMITANT, REQUIRE THE INCOME ON THE RELEVANT TUR NOVER BEING ALSO INCLUDED IN THE (GROSS) INCOME FOR THE YEAR. SIMILARLY, WHETHER THE SUM OF . 28.69 LACS STANDS RECEIVED BY 30.09.2016 OR NOT, IN WHICH LATTER CASE IT WOULD REQUIRE BEING EXCLUDED IN COMPUTING EXPORT TURNOVER, IS AGAIN A MATTER OF RECORD AND VERIFICAT ION. THE MATTER IS ACCORDINGLY RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ISSUING DEFINITE FINDINGS OF F ACT AFTER ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF PRESENTING ITS CASE BE FORE HIM. I DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MARCH 29, 2017 AT CHENNAI . SD/- ( ) (SANJAY ARORA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, / /DATED, MARCH 29, 2017. EDN 0 ( *'-12 32%- /COPY TO: 1. &' /APPELLANT 2. *+&' /RESPONDENT 3. , 4- ( )/CIT(A) 4. , 4- /CIT 5. 2$56 *'-' /DR 6. 67# 8 /GF