PARAMOUNT HEALTH SERVICES (TPA) P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 7(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2188/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100808 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

PARAMOUNT HEALTH SERVICES TPA P LTD ITA NO. 2188 /MUM/20 1 3 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C , MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , J UDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. : 2 188 /MUM/20 1 3 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 1 0 ) PARAMOUNT HEALTH SERVICES TPA P LTD , ELITE HOUSE, 2 ND FLOOR, 54 - A, MATHURADAS, VASAJNI ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI - 400 0 9 3 .: PAN: AA C C P 446 5 H VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 7(1)(3), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJESH SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D URGA DUTT /DATE OF HEARING : 23 - 0 6 - 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 - 08 - 201 5 ORDER , . . : PER AMIT SHUKLA, AM : THE A FORESAID APPEAL W A S ALREADY DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ORDER DATED 25.07.2014. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION STATING THAT THE TRIBU NAL HAS ONLY ADJUDICATED GROUND NO. 1 TO 7, HOWEVER, GROUND NOS. 8 & 9 W ERE LEFT TO BE ADJUDICATED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER WAS RECALLED FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATING GROUND NOS. 8 & 9. THUS, WE HAVE TO ONLY DECIDE GROUND NOS. 8 & 9, WHICH READS AS UN DER: 8. THE CIT(APPEAL) ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.4,99,695/ - BEING UN - RECONCILED DIFFERENCE IN RECEIPT AS PER ITS DATED VIS - - VIS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. 9. THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 2. AT T HE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT TH E ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 8 IS SQUARELY COVERED BY A DECISION OF THE PARAMOUNT HEALTH SERVICES TPA P LTD ITA NO. 2188 /MUM/20 1 3 2 TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 IN ITA NO. 5400/MUM/2013 AND 5269/MUM/2013. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN INCOME AS PER ITS DATA VIS - - VIS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4,99,695/ - AND ACCORDINGLY HE MADE THE ADDITION. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DIFFERENCE IS ONLY ON A CCOUNT OF DIFFERENT SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE PARTIES. THE RELEVANT SUBMISSION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) READS AS UNDER: DURING THE YEAR THERE ARE NUMBER OF TDS CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY DIFFERENT PARTIES. SOME OF THE PARTIES FOLLO W THE CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTING TDS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THESE PARTIES HAVE DEDUCTED TDS ON THE BASIS OF PAYMENT RATHER THAN ON THE BASIS OF AMOUNT CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, AS FAR AS THE APPELLANT IS CON C ERNED, IT HAS SHOWN THE TOTAL INCOME ON THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND HENCE INCOME HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ONLY BECAUSE OF THE MISTAKES AT THE END OF DEDUCTORS, THE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT UNNECESSARY SUFFER. TOTAL TDS DEDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WORKS OUT TO RS. 1,53,00,873/ - . THE TOTAL INCOME AS PER ITS DATA IS RS. 12,34,71,679/ - AND TOTAL I NCOME OFFERED FOR TAXATION BY THE APPELLANTS IS RS. 17,75,71,494/ - CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION MAY BE DEL ETED. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION HAS DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES PLEA ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED T O RECONCILE THE DISCREPANCY . 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FINDING GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCO ME ON MERCANTILE SYSTEM, WHEREAS THE PARTIES HAVE DEDUCED THE TDS ON PAYMENT BASIS. SO PARAMOUNT HEALTH SERVICES TPA P LTD ITA NO. 2188 /MUM/20 1 3 3 THERE IS SOME MINOR DISCREPANCY. MOREOVER THE INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FAR MORE THAN AS PER ITS DATA. IN SIMILAR SITUATION THE TRIBUNAL IN AY 2010 - 11 HAS DELETE D THE ADDITION MADE ON EXACTLY SIMILAR GROUND. THUS FOLLOWING THE SAME PRINCIPLE, WE HOLD THAT NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THIS YEAR ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 8 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. REGARDING GROUND NO. 9, I T HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES THAT THE SAME IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED BEING CONSEQUENTIAL. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH AUGUST , 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( . . ) ( ) ( B R BASKARAN ) ( AMIT SHUKLA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 19 TH AUGUST , 2015 / COPY TO: - 1) / THE APPELLANT. 2) / THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) - 11 , MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT CONCERNED ____/DIT(IT0 - II, MUMBAI. 5) , , / THE D.R. C BENCH, MUMBAI. 6) \ COPY TO GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / / , DY. / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI * . . *CHAVAN, SR.PS