Synapse Systems Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-8(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 232/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 23220514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 28-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD , .. , '# ' $ BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.232/AHD/2012 ( & ' & ' & ' & ' / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SYNAPSE SYSTEMS P.LTD. E-2, PARTH INDRAPRAST TOWER GURUKUL ROAD MEMNAGAR, AHMEDABAD & & & & / VS. THE ITO WARD-8(2) AHMEDABAD ( '# ./)* ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAFCS 7077 P ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+/ RESPONDENT ) (+ . '/ APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.J.SHAH ,-(+ / . ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VINOD TANWANI, SR.D.R. &0 / #/ // / DATE OF HEARING : 28/3/2012 12' / # / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/3/12 '3/ O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE W HICH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDAB AD DATED 18/11/2011 PASSED FOR A.Y. 2008-09 AND THE SUBSTAN TIVE GROUND RAISED BEFORE US IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW BY CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A SUM OF RS.93,500/- ON ACCOUNT O F COMMISSION PAID TO VARIOUS PARTIES. ITA NO .232/AHD/2012 SYNAPSE SYSTEMS P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 16 /04/2010 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF INTERACTIVE MULTI-MEDIA. UNDER THE HEAD COMMISSION EXPENSES A SUM OF RS.3,39,250 /- WAS DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED LET TERS U/S.133(6) OF THE I.T.ACT. THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS IN RESPECT OF CO MMISSION PAYMENT MADE TO ONE SMT.SHAKUNTALA B.PATEL OF RS.35,000/- A ND SHRI MALCHAND LUNIA OF RS.58,500/- TOTALLING TO RS.93,500/-. TH E MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE COM MISSION WAS PAID. IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS, SMT. SHAKUNTALA B.PATEL AT TENDED. SHE COULD NOT FURNISH THE PROOF OF SERVICES RENDERED. THERE WAS NON-COMPLIANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE OTHER PERSON. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS THEREFORE DISMISSED THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPELLANT, LD.AR MR.M.J.SHA H APPEARED. HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON THE EVIDENCES FILED IN T HE COMPILATION, SUCH AS, A MODE OF PAYMENT, TDS DEDUCTED, VARIOUS CORRES PONDENCE WITH THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES, ETC. HE HAS ARGUED THAT AL L THE REQUISITE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCES WERE VERY MUCH PLACED BEF ORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, HENCE THERE WAS NO REASON TO REJECT TH E CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. ITA NO .232/AHD/2012 SYNAPSE SYSTEMS P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LD.SR.DR MR.VINOD TANWANI HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. AS PER THE DETAILS FURNISHED BEFORE T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW, IT IS EVIDENT THAT SHRI MALCHAND LUNIA AND SMT.SHAKUNTAL A B.PATEL BOTH ARE SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT SINCE THEIR PANS HAVE BEEN IN FORMED. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH A/C.PAYEE CHEQUES AND THE TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. AS FA R AS THE QUESTION OF SERVICES RENDERED IS CONCERNED, CERTAIN CORRESPONDE NCE IS ON RECORD THROUGH WHICH IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE PERSONS IN QUE STION HAVE PROCURED THE WORK OF DEVELOPMENT OF CORPORATE FILM AND DEVELOPME NT FILM TO THE ASSESSEE. THROUGH ONE OF THE CORRESPONDENCE, IT TR ANSPIRES THAT SMT.SHKUNTALA B.PATEL HAS EXPEDITED THE COLLECTION OF PAYMENT FROM SOME OF THE CLIENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. LIKEWISE, SHR I MALCHAND LUNIA HAD MADE SEVERAL CORRESPONDENCE AND CERTAIN CLIENTS WER E HANDLED FOR MAKING OF AN AUDIO-VIDEO PRESENTATION. WE HAVE BEE N INFORMED THAT SHRI MALCHAND LUNIA WAS INSTRUMENTAL TO GET PROFESSIONAL WORK FROM GUJARAT SAHITYA ACADEMY FOR A PRESENTATION OF KITE FESTIV AL. UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE FIND NO LOGIC FOR DOUBTING THE GENUINENESS OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENT. WE HEREBY REVERSE THE FINDING OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y AND DIRECT TO ALLOW THE CLAIM. RESULTANTLY, GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( ) '# ( T.R. MEENA ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/ 03 /2012 ..&, .&../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO .232/AHD/2012 SYNAPSE SYSTEMS P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - '3 / ,4 5'4' '3 / ,4 5'4' '3 / ,4 5'4' '3 / ,4 5'4'/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 6() / THE CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD 5. 49: ,& , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :; <0 / GUARD FILE. '3& '3& '3& '3& / BY ORDER, -4 , //TRUE COPY// = == =/ // / ) ) ) ) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION..28.3.12 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 28.3.12 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S30.3.12 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 30.3.12 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER