Sai Working Solutions (P) Ltd., Kolkata V. ITO, Ward-10(1), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 2211/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7556 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH A, KOLKATA BEFORE SH. J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SH.S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2211/KOL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2016 PASSED BY CIT(A)-18, KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT) FOR AY 2011-12. 2. GROUND NO.1(A) & (B) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED RECEIPT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO LD.AR, THE ADDITION INVOLVING AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,53,806/- IS RELATING TO SERVICE TAX COMPONENT WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND PAID IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR, SHOWING THE PROOF WHICH LD.AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO.12 OF THE PAPER BOOK. LD.DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE SAME. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF LD.AR & LD.DR, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO REMAND THE MATTER TO AO FOR HIS VERIFICATION WHETHER THE SAID AMOUNT IS REALLY A DIFFERENCE IN TAX COMPONENT SAI WORKING SOLUTIONS (P.) LTD., 866, LAKE TOWN, BLOCK-A, KOLKATA-700089. PAN-AAJCS5580R VS ITO, WARD-10(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700069. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH.RAVI TULSIYAN, FCA RESPONDENT BY SH. SANKAR HALDER, JCIT, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 20.11.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16.01.2019 ITA NO.2211/KOL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) PAGE | 2 WHICH WAS ADMITTEDLY NOT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THUS, GROUND NOS.1(A) & (B) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. GROUND NO.2(A), (B) & (C) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ON PAYMENT OF SUPERVISION CHARGES IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE LD.AR IS THAT THE SAME EXPENDITURE WAS ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PAST AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO.40 FOR ASSESSMENT ORDER RELATING TO AY 2012-13 AND PAGE NO.46 FOR AY 2013-14 PLACED IN PAPER BOOK. LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE REVENUE CANNOT TAKE A DIFFERENT STAND DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CONTRARY TO THE STAND TAKEN IN SUBSEQUENT AND EARLIER YEARS. WE FIND AT PAGE NOS.40 TO 49, ASSESSMENT YEAR WERE 2012-13 & 2013-14 WHEREIN WE FIND NO OBJECTION WHATSOEVER BEEN RAISED BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING SUPERVISION CHARGES. LD.DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE SAME BY BRINGING ON RECORD A CONTRARY VIEW IN PAST AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT BY THE ITAT OR HONBLE HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS DELETED. THUS, GROUND NOS.2(A), (B) & (C) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 6. GROUND NO.3(A) & (B) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.34,66,502/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON- FURNISHING OF TDS DETAILS. 7. HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.AR IS THAT THE AO ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT FOR NON- FURNISHING OF TDS DETAILS AND NON-EXPLANATION TO SUMMONS U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT IS BAD AND ARBITRARY. LD.AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NOS. 34 & 35 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE REPLIED IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WHEREIN HE FURNISHED DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS OF ITA NO.2211/KOL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) PAGE | 3 NIKHILESWAR NAYAK BETWEEN 01.04.2010 TO 31.03.2011. THE SAID DOCUMENTS CLEARLY SHOWS AN OFFICE OF THE AO RECEIVED THE SAME ON 20.02.2014. THEREFORE, THE VIEW OF AO IS BAD IN ADDING THE SAID AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF NON-FURNISHING OF DETAILS AND NON-EXPLANATION TO SUMMONS U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE SAME IS SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION MADE THEREON IS DELETED. THUS, GROUND NOS.3(A) & (B) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.01.2019. SD/- SD/- (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER [ DATE:- 16.01.2019 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT- SAI WORKING SOLUTIONS (P.) LTD., 866, LAKE TOWN, BLOCK-A, KOLKATA-700089. 2. RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-10(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700069. 3. CIT-KOLKATA 4. CIT(APPEALS)-KOLKATA 5. DR: ITAT -KOLKATA BENCHES BY ORDER AR/H.O.O ITAT, KOLKATA