DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, Kolkata V. M/s CAE India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 379/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0886 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KUMAR
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

, D , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH D KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.379/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, 7 TH FLOOR, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-69 / V/S . M/S CAE INDIA PVT. LTD. 108, OFF BULL TEMPLE ROAD, 3 RD FLOOR, BANGALORE-560019 [ PAN NO.AAECM 3338 G ] /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SAURABH KUMAR, ADDL. CIT-DR /BY RESPONDENT NONE /DATE OF HEARING 24-10-2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06-12-2017 /O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, KOLKATA DATED 31.12.2014. ASSESSME NT WAS FRAMED BY DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 31.12.2011FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE AS PER ITS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWING RE LIEF TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,05,27,486/-,WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THE FRESH EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A(1) & 46A(3) OF THE IT RULES. ITA NO.379/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT CIR-2(1) KOL. VS. M/S CAE INDIA PVT. LTD. PAGE 2 2. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWING REL IEF TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL CHARGES, AMOUN TING TO RS.22,19,764/- WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO EXAM INE THE FRESH EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A(1) & 46A(3) OF THE IT RULES. 3. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWING REL IEF TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, AMOUNTING TO RS.9 ,28,125/-, WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THE FRESH EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A(3) OF THE IT RULES. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF O F ASSESSEE THOUGH NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD. IT WAS A LSO OBSERVED THAT NOBODY FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED ON THE EARLIE R OCCASION WHEN THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. THEREFORE WE DECIDED TO HEAR THE PRESE NT APPEAL WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF ASSESSEE OR BY LD. AR. 4. FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN GROUND NO.1 IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR 1,05,27,486/- ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS ON THE BASIS OF FRESH EVIDENC E ADMITTED BY HIM IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISION OF RULE 46A(1) AND 46A(3) OF IT RU LES,1962. 5. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A PRIV ATE LIMITED COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF INTEGRATION OF HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE IN THE FIELD OF SIMULATION AND SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOU NT HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS FOR 48,41,100/- AND 56,86,386/- ONLY UNDER THE HEAD PROJECT CONTRACT EXPENSES AND OPERATING AND ADMINIS TRATIVE EXPENSES AGGREGATING TO 1,05,27,486/-. THE AO TREATED THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS AS NOTIONAL LOSS AND ACCORDINGLY CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE WHY SUCH LOSS SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY SUITABLE REPLY. THER EFORE, THE AO TREATED THE LOSS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE AS NOTIONAL LOSS AND DISALLOWED THE SAME BY ADDING TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 6. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT LOSS IS REPRESENTI NG THE DIFFERENCE IN THE RATE OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE BETWEEN DATE OF INVOICE ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS AND THE DATE ON WHICH BALANCE-SHEET IS PREPARED. THE IMPUGNED LOSS HAS ARISEN ON ACCOUNT OF REVENUE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE IMPUGN ED LOSS IS ALLOWED ELIGIBLE FOR ITA NO.379/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT CIR-2(1) KOL. VS. M/S CAE INDIA PVT. LTD. PAGE 3 DEDUCTION AS PER THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD 11 THE EFF ECTS OF CHANGES IN THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATES ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LOSS WAS DETERMINED AFTER C ONSIDERING THE GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CON SIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBS ERVING AS UNDER:- 3.2 THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONS IDERED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REGARDING THE EXCHANGE RATE LOSS CLAIMED AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR BY THE APPELLANT TO THE EXTENT OF RS .1,05,27,486/-.THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE LOSS BY APPLYING CIRCULAR NO.3 OF 20 10. IT IS, HOWEVER, SEEN FROM THE DETAILS FILED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE FOREIGN EXC HANGE LOSS WAS ARISING FROM PAYMENTS TO CREDITORS WHO PROVIDED GOODS/SERVICES R ELATED TO PROJECTS OR CONTRACTS WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE HEAD OF EXPENSES UNDER W HICH THE SAME HAVE BEEN INCLUDED I.E. PROJECT AND CONTRACT EXPENSES AND OPERATING AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2010 DATED 23.03.2010 IS IN RESPECT O SPECULATIVE OR DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS AN D IN THIS CASE CANNOT BE THE SOLE BASIS FOR DISALLOWANCE. THIS INSTRUCTION WOULD BE A PPLICABLE ONLY IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE LOSS HAS INCURRED ON THE BASIS OF SPECULATIVE T RANSACTIONS WHICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE. IN ADDITION, CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. MARTIN & HARRIS (P) LTD. 154 ITR 460 AS WELL AS THA T OF SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA (P) LTD 312 ITR 254,THE TR ADING LIABILITY WOULD VARY AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR DUE TO EXCHANGE RATE FLUCTUATIONS AT THE END OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR I.E.AS ON 31ST MARCH OF THE FINANCI AL YEAR HAS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR. IN THE APPELLANTS CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE EXCHANGE RATE FLUCTUATIONS IN RESPECT TO TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE TRADING ACTIVITIES/CRE DITORS OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT HE NOTIONAL LOSS DUE TO EXCHANGE RATE VARIATIONS CALCULATED AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2009 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WAS AN AL LOWABLE EXPENDITURE AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 7. LD. DR BEFORE US VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO AND HE LEFT THE ISSUE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH. 8. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED LOSS OF 1,05,27,486/- ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN CURRENCY FLUCTUATION AND SAID LOSS WAS TREATED BY A O AS NOTIONAL. ACCORDINGLY, SAME WAS DISALLOWED BY HIM. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) REVERSED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING THAT THE IMPUGNED LOSS REPRESENTS THE DIFFERENCE IN FOREIGN CURRENCY IN RELATION TO REVENUE TRANSACTIONS AND THEREFORE ELIG IBLE FOR DEDUCTION. 8.1 IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL THE GRIEVANCE OF THE RE VENUE IS THAT RELIEF WAS GRANTED BY LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE W HICH WAS ADMITTED IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISION OF RULE 46A OF THE I T RULES, 1962. HOWEVER, LD. DR ITA NO.379/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT CIR-2(1) KOL. VS. M/S CAE INDIA PVT. LTD. PAGE 4 BEFORE US HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CES WHICH WERE ADMITTED BY LD. CIT(A). WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE AO DISREGARDED THE LO SS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE REPLY MADE BY ASSESSEE WAS NOT S UITABLE. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE NO DOCUMENTATION / EXPLANATION WAS OF FERED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE RELEVANT EXTR ACT OF AO IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY C OULD NOT FURNISH ANY SUITABLE EXPLANATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT NO ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY LD. CIT(A) IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISION OF RULE 46 A OF THE IT RULES, 1962. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 9. NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN GROUND NO.2 IS T HAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION FOR 22,19,764/- ON ACCOUNT OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL C HARGES ON THE BASIS OF FRESH EVIDENCE ADMITTED IN CONTRAVENTI ON TO THE PROVISION OF RULE 46A(1) AND 46A(3) OF THE IT RULES, 1962. 10. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO OBSERVED ON THE BASIS OF AGREEMENT THAT ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO MAKE THE PAYM ENT TO FIVE CONSULTANTS FOR 2,44,400/- PER MONTH FOR 10 MONTHS. THUS, THE TOTAL EXPENSE OF CONSULTANCY CHARGES COMES TO 24,44,000 LAKH BUT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AN EXPENSE OF 46,64,764/- IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER DISALLOWED THE EXCESS EXPENSES OF 22,19,764/- (46,54,764 24,45,000) AND ADDED TO TH E TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 11. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE OFFICE WAS SHI FTED FROM KOLKATA TO BENGALURU DURING THE PERIOD OF 2009-10. THEREFORE, ALL THE AG REEMENTS WERE NOT LOCATED AND ACCORDINGLY THESE WERE NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE PAYMENT S WERE MADE AFTER THE DEDUCTION OF TDS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE AMOUNT OF EXPENSE HAS BEEN DULY SHOWN IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND NO DEFECT WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN REPORTED BY TAX AUDITOR. THUS, SIMPLY THE RELEVANT AGREEMENTS WERE NOT PRODUCED BE FORE THE AO CANNOT BE BASIS FOR DISALLOWANCE. THE OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH ARE AVAILABL E ON RECORD CANNOT BE IGNORED. ITA NO.379/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT CIR-2(1) KOL. VS. M/S CAE INDIA PVT. LTD. PAGE 5 LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSE SSEE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4.2 IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT RS.46,64,764/- R ELATED TO PAYMENT OF CONSULTANCY CHARGES AND THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN DET AILS IN THE FORM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE PRESENCE OF WHOM CONSULTANCY CHARGES HAD B EEN PAID. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DULY DEDUCTED TDS IN RESPECT OF S UCH CONSULTANCY CHARGES IT IS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT SOME AGREEMENTS WERE NOT PRODUCED DU E TO INCORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF THE AOS REQUIREMENTS. IN THIS REGARD, THE DETAILS PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT INCLUDING THE INFORMATION REGARDING DEDUCTION OF TDS HAVE BEE N CONSIDERED. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE INFORMA TION REGAINED PAYMENTS INCLUDING DEDUCTION OF TDS MADE ON SUCH PAYMENTS. IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE PAYMENTS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE AGREEMENTS S8UBMITTED BEFORE HIM IF AT ALL THE DISALLOWANCE WAS TO BE MADE. THE AO SHOU LD HAVE OBTAINED THE REQUISITE DETAILS AND MADE THE DISALLOWANCE AFTER DULY VERIFY ING SUCH PAYMENTS FROM THE RECIPIENTS THE DETAILS OF WHOM WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT AS ALSO THEIR TDS RETURNS. ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWANCE ON THIS GROUND M ADE BY THE AO TO THE EXTENT OF RS.22,19,764/-IS DELETED. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 12. BEFORE US LD. DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. 13. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT ISSUE, AO MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE LEGA L AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF NON-SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) GRANTED R ELIEF TO ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY ASSESSEE AFTER DEDUCTING THE TDS AND THROUGH BAKING CHANNEL. NOW THE GRIEVANCE OF REVENUE BEFORE US IS THAT RELIEF WAS GRANTED BY LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WE RE ADMITTED IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISION OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE AGREEMENT IN SUPPORT OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPE NSES WERE NOT SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE LD. CIT(A). IN THE ABSENCE OF AGREEMENT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHAR GES. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER HAVING RELIANCE THAT THE IMPUGNE D EXPENSES WERE INCURRED AFTER DEDUCTING THE TDS AND ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS OF TDS WERE DULY REFLECTED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. THUS, WE FIND THAT THE RELIEF WAS GRA NTED BY LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES/ INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE TAX AUDIT RE PORT. THUS, IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAD BEEN ADMITTED BY LD. CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE APPELLATE ORDER IN CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISION OF RULE 46A OF IT RULES, 1962. IN THE BACK GROUND ITA NO.379/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT CIR-2(1) KOL. VS. M/S CAE INDIA PVT. LTD. PAGE 6 OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND PRECEDENT WE DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME. CONSEQUE NTLY, REVENUES GROUND IS DISMISSED. 14. LAST ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN GROUND NO.3 IS THAT L. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY AO FOR 9,28,125/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS ON THE B ASIS OF FRESH EVIDENCE WHICH WERE ADMITTED IN CONTRAVENT ION TO THE PROVISION OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962. 15. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CREDIT BALANCE OF 9,28,125/- ONLY IN THE NAME OF M/S ANUGRAHA AGENCIE S WHEREAS THE PARTY HAS CONFIRMED DEBIT BALANCE IN IT S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AT NIL IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED TO IT U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE AMOUNT OF LIABILITY WAS TREATED BY THE AO AS BOGUS AND ACCORDINGLY AMOU NT OF 9,28,125/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 16. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS INADVER TENTLY OBSERVED THAT IT HAS SHOWN A BALANCE OF 9,28,125/-IN THE NAME OF M/S ANUGRAHA AGENCIES. AS PER THE RECORD OF ASSESSEE NO BALANCE HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE NAME OF M /S ANUGRAHA AGENCIES. THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATION MADE BY AO THAT THERE WA S A DIFFERENCE IN THE LEDGER OF M/S ANUGRAHA AGENCIES FOR 9,28,125/- ONLY IS INCORRECT. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6.1 THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONS IDERED. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS AND THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLAN T THAT THE ALLEGED BALANCE OF RS.9,28,125/- IN THE NAME OF ANUGRAHA AGENCIES WAS NOT THERE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTANT AND IT APPEARS THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNT HAS BEEN TAKEN INCORRECTLY BY THE AO. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THIS PARTY HAD SHOWN NIL BALANCE AS AGAINST TH E BALANCE OF RS.9,28,125/- IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT THE ADDITION OF THIS AMOUNT BY THE AO WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND ACCORD INGLY THE SAME IS DELETED. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 17. LD. DR BEFORE US SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND LEFT THE ISSUE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH. ITA NO.379/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT CIR-2(1) KOL. VS. M/S CAE INDIA PVT. LTD. PAGE 7 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERE NCE OBSERVED BY HIM IN THE LEDGER BALANCE OF M/S ANUGRAHA AGENCIES FOR 9,28,125/- ONLY. HOWEVER, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED BY LD. CIT-A BY OBSERVING THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE AS OBSERVED BY AO IN THE LEDGER OF M/S ANUGRAHA AGENCIES. NOW THE GRIEVA NCE OF REVENUE BEFORE US IS THAT LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON T HE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WERE ADMITTED IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISI ON OF RULE 46A OF IT RULES, 1962. HOWEVER, LD. DR BEFORE US HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE ADMITTED BY LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HO LD THAT NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY LD. CIT(A) IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISION OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 19. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 06/12/2017 SD/- SD/- ( % ') ( ') (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *DKP, SR.P.S ) - 06/12/2017 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), AAYAKAR BAWAN, 7 TH FL, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOL KATA-69 2. /RESPONDENT-M/S CAE INDIA PVT. LTD., 109, OFF BULL TEMPLE ROAD, 3 RD FLOOR, BANGALORE-56001 9 3. , - / CONCERNED CIT 4. - - / CIT (A) 5. . %%, , , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 2 / GUARD FILE. BY ORD ER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO ,,