ACIT, New Delhi V. Subrata Mazumdar, New Delhi

ITA 2197/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 219720114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S D GEORGE SENIOR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI) SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2197/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) ACIT, CIRCLE 23 (1), VS. SHRI SUBRATA MAZUMDAR, NEW DELHI. K 203, C.R. PARK, NEW DELHI. (PAN : AAIPM8365L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SMT. S.D. GEORGE, SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE EMANATES FROM ORDE R OF CIT (APPEALS)- XXIII, NEW DELHI DATED 28.02.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-07. THE GROUND S OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.23,57,862/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF CONSU LTANCY FEE. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HE ARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND A CHEMICAL ENG INEER & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS PROV IDED CONSULTANCY TO VARIOUS ITA NO.2197/DEL./2011 2 FOREIGN CLIENTS LIKE LOUIS BERGER, USA, JAS-ANZ, AU STRALIA & NEW ZEALAND AND RVA NETHERLANDS. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CONSULTANCY IN THE CURRENCIES OF US $, AUSTRALIAN $ AND EURO THROUGH T HE BANKING CHANNELS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RECEIVI NG FIXED MONTHLY PAYMENTS FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY HIM TO LOUIS BERGER PVT. LTD. THE CIT (A) HAS CATEGORICALLY MADE A FINDING THAT THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS FACTUALLY WRONG AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GETTING RS.30,000/- PER MONTH FROM ITS CLIENT. THE FACTS OF THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVING CONSULTANC Y TO VARIOUS FOREIGN CLIENTS INCLUDING LOUIS BERGER PVT. LTD.. THE INVOICES WER E RAISED ON THE BASIS OF WORK DONE. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSES SEE CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS A SALARIED PERSON FOR TAX PURPOSES. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS, WE FIND NO FAULT IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND WE DISMISS THE REVE NUES APPEAL. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 14 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XXIII, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.