Ballistic Learning (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2928/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 292820114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANURADHA MISRA
• Assessee Lawyers: V MOHAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH A AA A : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV, ,, , JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO. .. .2928/DEL/2012 2928/DEL/2012 2928/DEL/2012 2928/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2005 2005 2005 2005- -- -06 0606 06 M/S BALLISTIC LEARNING (P) M/S BALLISTIC LEARNING (P) M/S BALLISTIC LEARNING (P) M/S BALLISTIC LEARNING (P) LTD., LTD., LTD., LTD., E EE E- -- -48/4, 2 48/4, 2 48/4, 2 48/4, 2 ND NDND ND FLOOR, FLOOR, FLOOR, FLOOR, OKHL OKHL OKHL OKHLA AA A- -- -II, II,II, II, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 020. 110 020. 110 020. 110 020. PAN : AACCB3330P. PAN : AACCB3330P. PAN : AACCB3330P. PAN : AACCB3330P. VS. VS. VS. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE- -- -9, 9,9, 9, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VED JAIN, FCA AND SHRI V.MOHAN, AR. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. ANURADHA MISRA, CIT-DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G. PER G. PER G. PER G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VP VPVP VP : : : : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XXXII, DELHI DATED 4 TH MAY, 2012 FOR THE AY 2005-06. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, ONLY ONE GROUND OF APPEAL I.E. GROUND NO.6 WAS PRESSED WHICH IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 3 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF CONSULTANCY SERVICES TO M/S ACUMEN CONSULTIN G INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (IN SHORT ACIPL). THEREFORE, ALL OTHER GROUNDS EXCEPT GROUND NO.6 ARE REJECTED BEING NOT PRESSED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITTED B Y THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, DUE TO LACK O F ADEQUATE ITA-2928/DEL/2012 2 OPPORTUNITY, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENDITURE OF ` 3 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF CONSULTING SERVICES FEES. HOWEVER, ALL THE EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF THE VOUCHER ISSUED BY ACIPL, THEIR CONFIRMATION, PERMANENT ACCOUN T NUMBER AS WELL AS THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT BY CHEQUE WERE DULY FURNISHE D BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO ADMITTED THE SAME IN TERMS OF RULE 46A. THE ADMISSION OF SUCH EVIDENCE IS NOT BEING DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT ALLOW THE RELIEF ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ACIPL AN D THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE VERIFIABLE DETAILS ABOUT T HE CONDUCT OF SUCH TRAINING. HE STATED THAT IN DAY-TO-DAY RUNNING OF BUSINESS, FOR EVERYTHING, THERE IS NO AGREEMENT IN WRITING. THE A SSESSEE ENGAGED ACIPL FOR CONDUCTING THE TRAINING FOR ITS EMPLOYEES I N RESPECT OF SOFT SKILL DEVELOPMENT. THE SAME IS DULY SUPPORTED BY ALL N ECESSARY EVIDENCES. THE TDS HAS ALREADY BEEN DEDUCTED FROM SUC H PAYMENT. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISALLOWED THE CLAIM MERELY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION AND SUSPICION. 4. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SHE STATED THAT THE CIT(A) RIGHT LY DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. THE SAME SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE INVOICE ISSUED BY ACIPL AND THE CONF IRMATION FROM THE SAID PARTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TDS ON THE ABO VE AMOUNT. THE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AND COPY OF THEIR INCO ME TAX RETURN IS PRODUCED AND THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT BY CHEQUE IN RESP ECT OF CONSULTANCY CHARGES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED. THE ABOVE DE TAILS HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) MERELY ON THE B ASIS OF PRESUMPTION AND SUSPICION. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY O F FACTS AND ITA-2928/DEL/2012 3 EVIDENCES ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR DISALLOWANCE OF ` 3 LAKHS BEING CONSULTANCY CHARGES PAID TO ACIPL. THE SAME IS DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY AL LOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- ( (( (RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV) )) ) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 29.11.2013 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : M/S BALLISTIC LEARNING (P) LTD., M/S BALLISTIC LEARNING (P) LTD., M/S BALLISTIC LEARNING (P) LTD., M/S BALLISTIC LEARNING (P) LTD., E EE E- -- -48/4, 2 48/4, 2 48/4, 2 48/4, 2 ND NDND ND FLOOR, OKHLA FLOOR, OKHLA FLOOR, OKHLA FLOOR, OKHLA- -- -II, NEW DELHI II, NEW DELHI II, NEW DELHI II, NEW DELHI 110 020. 110 020. 110 020. 110 020. 2. RESPONDENT : ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE- -- -9, NEW DELHI. 9, NEW DELHI. 9, NEW DELHI. 9, NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR