Altran Technologies India Private Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1973/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52985 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS ANUSHA KHURANA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH KAN ODIA
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.1973/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ALTRAN TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LTD. VS. INCOME T AX OFFICER, JE 9/104, KHIRKI EXTN., MALVIYA NAGAR, WARD-1(3), C.R. M BLOCK, OPP. TIKONA PARK, NEW DELHI. BUILDING, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAKASH KAN ODIA, CA RESPONDENT BY : MRS. ANUSHA KHURAN A, SR. DR ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED B Y LD. CIT(A)-IV CR BUILDING DATED 17.2.2011 RELEVANT TO ASSTT. YEAR 20 07-08 WHEREBY BESIDES CHALLENGING THE CONFIRMATION OF RS. 43,85,214/- AND RS. 5,55,855/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CONSULTANCY FEE AND NON RECORDING OF ACC RUAL OF EXPENSES REBILLED ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CHALLENGED CONFIRMATION OF DISALL OWANCE OF RS. 8,24,476/- MADE BY THE AO OUT OF RATES AND TAXES EXPENSES. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL ASSESSEES COUNSEL DID NOT PRESS THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 8,24,476/- ON A CCOUNT OF RATES AND TAXES EXPENSES AND BY MAKING ENDORSEMENT TO THIS EXTENT A GAINST THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL IT WAS PLEADED FOR DISMISSAL OF SUCH GROUND OF APPEAL AS NOT PRESSED AND TO THIS PLEA OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE, LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT I.T.A. NO. 1973/DEL/11 I.T.A. NO. 1973/DEL/11 I.T.A. NO. 1973/DEL/11 I.T.A. NO. 1973/DEL/11 2 AS SUCH GROUND NO. 3(A) AND 3(B) RELATABLE TO CONFI RMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 8,24,476/- IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 3. AS REGARDS CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 43,85 ,214/-, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AO PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 144 WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING THAT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUN T CONSULTANCY FEE OF RS. 4385214/- IS FORMING PART OF TOTAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE SO ADDITIONS MADE WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION AND, SIMIL ARLY ABOUT CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.555285/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF NON-RECORDING OF ACCRUAL OF EXPENSES REBILLED BY THE GROUP COMPANIES IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS NEITHER CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUCTION NO R THE SAME WAS DEBITED BY IT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. SINCE EX PARTE O RDER HAS BEEN PASSED SO SUCH ASPECT HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED WHICH ARE VITAL. TH EREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ON BOTH THE CO UNTS SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND MATTER MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE AO FOR RECONSIDE RATION OF THESE TWO ISSUES. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE SPECIFIC PREFERENCE TO BALANCE SHEET AND OTHER ACCO UNTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND COPIES FILED BEF ORE US AND PRAYED FOR RESTORING THE ISSUES BACK TO THE FILE OF AO. 4. LD. DR STRONGLY PLEADED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE HAS DEFAULTED IN COMPLYING WITH THE TERMS OF NOTICE AND AO HAS PASSED PROPER ORDER, IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDE RED BY THE LD. CIT(A)THEREFORE IMPUGNED ORDER WITH RESPECT TO BOTH ADDITIONS SHOULD BE CONFIRMED AND BOTH THE APPEALS MAY BE DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO. 1973/DEL/11 I.T.A. NO. 1973/DEL/11 I.T.A. NO. 1973/DEL/11 I.T.A. NO. 1973/DEL/11 3 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, CONSIDERED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD AND FIND THAT THE AO HAS PASSED ON ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 BUT DID NOT CONSIDER THE ISSUES RELATABLE TO BOTH THE ADDITIONS APPROPRIATEL Y AND LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT DEALT WITH THE ISSUES JUSTIFIABLY. THEREFORE IN VIE W OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE JUST AND APPROP RIATE IF THE MATTER IN RELATION TO BOTH THE ADDITIONS IS RESTORED BACK TO AO BY SET TING ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW, FOR RECONSIDERING AND REDECIDING THEM AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACC ORDINGLY. 6. AS A RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE GETS PARTLY A CCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 17 TH OCTOBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (K.D. RANJAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 17.10.2011 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.