ACIT 6(1), MUMBAI V. AXIS BANK RISK CONSULTANCY SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4182/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0987 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI I.P. BANSAL, (JM) AND B.R.BASKARAN (AM) . . , . . , ./ I.T .A. NO. 4182 / MUM/ 201 2 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 7 - 08 ) DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR.6(1), ROOM NO. 506, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 / VS. M/S AXIS RISK CONSULTANCY SERVICES P LTD., 75, DR.A B ROAD, WO RLI, MUMBAI - 400018 ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAECA9833G / APPELLANT BY SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN / RSPONDENT BY NONE / D ATE OF HEARING : 2. 7 . 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2. 7. 201 5 / O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 27 - 03 - 2012 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 14, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,95,840/ - MADE BY THE AO . 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE , WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.4182 / MUM/20 1 2 2 3. WE HEARD LD D.R AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING RISK CONSULTANCY AND ADVISORY SERVICES, RISK ASSURANCE SERVICES ETC. AS PER THE AIR INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD REC EIVED FEE FOR PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SERVICES TO THE TUNE OF RS.25,65,209/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS FOR THE ABOVE SAID RECEIPTS. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF FEE OF RS.17,95,840/ - RECEIVED FROM M/S HALCYON R ESOURCES & MANAGEMENT CONSULTING P LTD, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH RELEVANT TDS CERTIFICATES. HENCE THE AO ADDED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.17,95,840/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A GGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.14,94,53,368/ - AS PROFESSIONAL FEES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH INCLUDED THE FEE OF RS.17,95,840/ - RECEIVED FROM M/S HALCYON RESOURCES AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTING P LTD. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED BREAK - UP DETAILS OF PR OFESSIONAL FEE, LEDGER ACCOUNT COPY OF M/S HALCYON AND THE COPY OF INVOICES RAISED UPON IT. HENCE THE LD CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AO, HOWEVER, REITERATED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH RELEVANT TDS CERTIFICATES AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SELF GENERATED. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO REPORTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE LD CIT(A), HOWEVER, NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY ACCOUNT ED FOR THE RECEIPT OF RS.17,95,840/ - AND ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE MERE NON - SUBMISSION OF TDS CERTIFICATE WOULD NOT WARRANT ANY ADDITION AGAIN. ACCORDINGLY HE DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.4182 / MUM/20 1 2 3 5. FIRS T OF ALL, WE NOTICE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.17,95,840/ - REPRESENTS PROFESSIONAL FEES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS NOT AN EXPENDITURE. THE LD CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AOS GRIEVANCE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH RELEVANT TDS CERTIFICATES. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IN WHICH CASE, ADDITION MIGHT BE WARRA NTED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DISCLOSED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS FORMING PART OF GROSS RECEIPTS, WE ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND AS TO HOW THE AO COULD MAKE ADDITION AGAIN, THAT TOO FOR NON - PRODUCTION OF TDS CERTIFICATES. THE ACTION OF THE AO AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE ADDITION OF SAME RECEIPT. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVEN UE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 2 ND JULY , 2015. 2 ND JULY , 2015 S D SD ( . . / I.P. BANSAL ) ( . . / B.R. BASKARAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 2 ND JULY, 2015 . . . ./ SRL , SR. PS ITA NO.4182 / MUM/20 1 2 4 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, T RUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI