M/s. Syncrolift Inc., New Delhi V. ADIT, New Delhi

ITA 477/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 47720114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Services rendered outside India
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUD ICIAL MEMBER ITA NO: 477/DEL/2013 AY : - 2003-04 M/S. SYNCROLIFT INC. VS. ADIT C/O LUTHRA & LUTHRA LAW OFFICES, CIRCLE-2(1) 103, ASHOKA ESTATE, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION BARAKHAMBA ROAD NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 001 (PAN AAGCS3624P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO: 671/DEL/2013 AY : - 200 3-04 DDIT, INTL. TAXATION VS. M/S. SYNCROLIFT INC. CIRCLE 2(2), BIRLA TOWERS, C/O LUTHRA & LUTHRA LAW OFFICES, 2 ND FLOOR, 103, ASHOKA ESTATE, 25, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, BARAKHAMBA ROAD NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 001 (PAN AAGCS3624P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MUKESH BHUTANI, ADVOCATE SHRI GAURAV GUPTA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUJIT KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 07.9.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : .10.2015 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 477/DEL/2013 IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAIN ST ORDER DATED 22.11.2012 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) XXV, NEW DELHI WHEREAS ITA NOS.477,671/DEL/2013 M/S. SYNCRO LIFT INC. VS. ADIT & DDIT VS. M/S. SYNCROLIFT INC. 2 ITA NO. 671/DEL/2013 IS THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL AGA INST THE SAME ORDER. WE ARE DISPOSING OF BOTH BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO. 477/DEL/2013 FIRST. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER :- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - XXV, NEW DELHI (/LD. CIT(A)') HAS PASSED THE ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 22,2012 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND CONFIRMED SOME OF TH E DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE ,LD. AO') VIDE ORDER DAT ED MARCH 24, 2006 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE AC T'). 2. THE LD. CIT(A) / LD. AO HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DISALLOWING AN AMOUNT OF USD 2,31,036 (I.E. RS. 1,12,32,970), AS GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COST UNDER SECTION 44C OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) / LD. AO HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY DISALLOWING AN AMOUNT OF USD 94,208 (APPROX. RS. 45,60,609) AS PART OF THE GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF USD 2,31,036 (I. E. RS. 1,12,32,970) EVEN THOUGH THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS RET URN OF INCOME, LEADING TO A DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE OF USD 94,208 (APPROX. RS. 45,60,609). 4. THE LD. CIT(A) / LD. AO HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY DISALLOWING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,97,561 AS PRE-PRO JECT EXPENDITURE, ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT SUBMIT THE DETAILS AND RECONCILE THE SAME. 5. THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEALS ARE INDEPENDENT AND WI THOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT FOR THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS. 2,98,83,407/-. ASSESSMEN T U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 24.3.3006 IN WHICH THE AO MADE DIS ALLOWANCES AS UNDER:- I) ON ACCOUNT OF TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES FEES RS. 1 ,27,15,131/- II) ON ACCOUNT OF SPECIFIC ADMINISTRATIVE COST RS. 1, 12,32,970/- ITA NOS.477,671/DEL/2013 M/S. SYNCRO LIFT INC. VS. ADIT & DDIT VS. M/S. SYNCROLIFT INC. 3 III) ON ACCOUNT OF DESIGN PROJECT AND FIELD EXPENDITURE RS. 57,25,871/- IV) INTEREST ON LATE PAYMENT OF TDS RS. 44,212/- V) ON ACCOUNT OF PRE PROJECT EXPENDITURE RS. 1,97,561/- 4. A TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 2,99,15,745/- WAS MADE AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT RS. 5,97,99,152/-. 5. LD. CIT (A) IN HIS ORDER DELETED AN ADDIT ION OF RS. 60,82,961/- AFTER GIVING A FINDING THAT OUT OF THIS AMOUNT RS. 51,15,974/- HAD ALREADY BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME AS PRE PROJEC T EXPENSES AND AS SUCH THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR A FURTHER DISALLOWANCE UND ER THIS NOMENCLATURE. LD. CIT(A) ALSO DELETED AN ADDITION OF RS. 66,32,170/- ADDED U /S 40(A)(I) FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON THE GROUND THAT AS THERE WAS NO CH ARGEABLE INCOME U/S 195 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN INDIA AND THE PAYMENT WAS M ADE BY THE HEAD OFFICE OUTSIDE INDIA FOR SERVICES RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA T O THE HEAD OFFICE AND HENCE THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS DISALLOWANCE. LD. CIT (A), FURTHER IN HIS ORDER, UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,12,32,970/- UNDER THE HEAD SPECIF IC ADMINISTRATIVE COST ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESEE HAD FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY SP ECIFIC DETAILS OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE HEAD OFFICE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT TO THE HEAD OFFICE. THE ADDITION OF RS. 57,25,871/- UNDER THE H EAD DESIGN, PROJECT AND FIELD EXPENDITURE WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CTI(A) ON THE GR OUND THAT AO HAD MADE AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 20% IN THE NAME OF PRIOR PERI OD EXPENSES AND THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER JUSTIFICATION FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXP ENSES AS THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. LD. CIT(A ) FURTHER CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,97,561/- UNDER THE HEAD PRE P ROJECT EXPENDITURE ON THE ITA NOS.477,671/DEL/2013 M/S. SYNCRO LIFT INC. VS. ADIT & DDIT VS. M/S. SYNCROLIFT INC. 4 GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY D ETAILS OR RECONCILE THE DISCREPANCY AS POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN HIS ASSESSM ENT ORDER. 6. IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS FAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,12,32,970/- (GROUND NOS 2 & 3 ) ON ACCOUNT OF SPECIFIC ADMINISTRATIVE COST IS CONCERNED, THE LD. AO AND TH E CIT(A) HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPEN DITURE AND COST INCURRED SPECIFICALLY IN RELATION TO A PROJECT. HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE COMPANY HAS OPERATED ON AN ELECTRONIC TIME RECORDING SYSTEM FROM HIS OFFICE WHICH IS LOCATED AT MIAMI. ALL THE EMPLOYEES WERE REQUIRED TO FILL IN A TIMESHEET EACH WEEK, DETAILING TIME SPENT TO THE PROJECTS ON WHICH THEY WERE WORKING. HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE HOURS REPORTED ON THE TIMESHEET WERE EXTRACTED TO FORM THE INPUT FOR THE SALARY OF THE EMPLOYEES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT COPIES OF THE TIMESHEETS WER E PROVIDED TO THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT THE SAME WERE NOT CONSID ERED BY THE AO WHILE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 44 C OF THE ACT ONLY REFERRED TO THE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE NATU RE AND NOT TO SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO A PROJECT. HE FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED WAS A SPECIFIC PROJECT RELATED COST DEBI TED UNDER THE HEAD DESIGN, PROJECT AND FIELD EXPENDITURE AND NOT GENERAL ADMI NISTRATIVE COST AND HENCE OUT OF THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 44C OF THE ACT. LD. DR ON TH E OTHER HAND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE AOS ORDER. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AN D ALSO PERUSED THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT IN PARA 4 OF THE AOS ORDER. THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE IN FORM OF TIMESHEETS NOR H AS THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ITA NOS.477,671/DEL/2013 M/S. SYNCRO LIFT INC. VS. ADIT & DDIT VS. M/S. SYNCROLIFT INC. 5 DISCUSSED THE SAME ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS RAISED BE FORE HIM AS WELL. THEREFORE, ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR A DENOVO ADJUDICATION ON THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,12,32,970/- RELATES TO GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE COST OR A SPECIFIC PROJECT RELATED COST AFTER DULY CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCES WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HE ARD BEFORE THE ORDER IS PASSED. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1, 12,32,970/- ON ACCOUNT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES BEING DISALLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT TWICE. SINCE GRO UND NOS 2 AND 3 ESSENTIALLY RELATE TO THE SAME ISSUE, GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSES SEES APPEAL IS ALSO ALLOWED AND THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FR ESH ADJUDICATION. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF R S. 1,97,561/- ON ACCOUNT OF PRE PROJECT EXPENDITURE. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT HE DID N OT WISH TO PRESS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO. 4 IS DISMISSED AS BEING NOT PRESSED. GROUND NO. 1,5 AND 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT NEED ANY ADJ UDICATION. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. ITA NO. 671/DEL/2013 IS THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF 60,82,961, ON ACCOUNT OF T ECHNICAL ASSOCIATE FEES PAID FOR SERVICES RENDERED PRIOR TO PE EXISTENCE FROM 1 ST OF JUNE 1997 TO JUNE 2002 ON AN INCORRECT APPRECIATION OF FACTS, HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUO MOTO ITA NOS.477,671/DEL/2013 M/S. SYNCRO LIFT INC. VS. ADIT & DDIT VS. M/S. SYNCROLIFT INC. 6 MADE A DISALLOWANCE REGARDING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDIT URE EXPENSE WHEN THE SAID DISALLOWANCE WAS UNDER DIFFERENT HEAD NOT INCL UDING THIS AMOUNT. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF 66,32,170/- ON ACCOUNT OF TECHNICAL ASSOCIATE FEES HOLDING THEM TO BE PAID FOR SERVICES RENDERED ABROA D BY WAY OF DEBIT NOTE RAISED BY HO TO PE AND THERE IS THUS NO CHARGEABLE INCOME U/S 195, WHEN ROYALTY/FTS ATTRACTS TAXATION U/S 9(1 )(VI)/(VII) O N GROSS BASIS AND CREDIT ENTRY AMOUNTS TO RECEIPT BY NON-RESIDENT AS PER 201 ITR 3 91. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF 66,32,170, HOLDING THEM TO BE PAID FOR SERVICES RENDERED ABROAD TO THE HO WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FAI LED TO PROVIDE DETAILS OF EITHER AGREEMENT OF NATURE OF SERVICES AND THE VERY FACT THAT PE HAD CLAIMED IT AS AN EXPENSE AND MADE PAYMENT AS PER DEBIT NOTE OF HO CORROBORATED THE FINDING OF AO THAT THE PAYMENT WAS FOR SERVICES PR OVIDED TO INDIAN PE FOR ITS BUSINESS IN INDIA. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TECHNICAL FEES DISALLOWED BY THE A O IS NOT CHARGEABLE INCOME U/S 195 OF THE ACT WHEN ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO OBTA IN A WITHHOLDING TAX ORDER U/S 195/197 IN TERMS OF SUPREME COURT DECISION IN G E INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE VS. CIT. 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF AO IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER DESIGN PROJECT AND FIELD EXPENDITURE PAID FOR HOURS SPENT DURING 4TH JANUARY 2002 TO 30TH APRIL 2002 AS PROJECT OFFICE WAS ESTABLISHED W EF 1 ST MAY 2002 I.E. SERVICES RENDERED PRIOR TO PE EXISTENCE ON AN INCOR RECT APPRECIATION OF FACTS, HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUO MOTO MADE A DISAL LOWANCE REGARDING PRIOR- PERIOD EXPENDITURE EXPENSE WHEN THE SAID DISALLOWAN CE WAS UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS NOT INCLUDING THIS AMOUNT AND THE CIT(A) HAD GIVEN CREDIT FOR THIS WHEN DELETING THE ADDITION OF 60,82,961/- ALSO ON ACCOUN T OF TECHNICAL ASSOCIATE FEES ALSO. 9. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 5 OF THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL PERTAIN TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 60,82,961/- ON ACCOUNT OF TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES FEES PAID FOR SERVICES RENDERED PRIOR TO PE EXPENSES FROM 1 ST JANUARY, 1997 TO JUNE, 2002. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT THE PA YMENT MATERIALISED ONLY IN ITA NOS.477,671/DEL/2013 M/S. SYNCRO LIFT INC. VS. ADIT & DDIT VS. M/S. SYNCROLIFT INC. 7 FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 WHEREAS THE TECHNICAL ASSOCI ATES FEES WERE PAID FOR THE PERIOD 1 ST JUNE, 1997 TO JUNE 2002 AND HENCE THE FEES WERE PA ID FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESEE PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT OF PE. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ITSELF DISALLOWED RS. 51,15,974/- AS P RIOR PERIOD EXPENSES IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION T O PAGE 69 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH CONTAINED THE LIST OF EXPENSES DISALLOWED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT BY DISALLOWING A FURTHER SUM OF RS. 60,82,961/-, THE AO HAS IN FACT MADE A DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THIS GROUND OF DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS CONNECTED WITH GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO. 1 OF THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS ALSO ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATI ON. 10. GROUND NOS. 2,3 AND 4 PERTAIN TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 66,32,170/- ON ACCOUNT OF TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES FEE PAID FOR SERVIC ES RENDERED ABROAD BY WAY OF DEBIT NOTE RAISED BY THE HO TO PE. LD. DR SUBMITTED THA T ALTHOUGH THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE HEAD OFFICE TO OTHER NON-RESIDENT, IT I S UNDISPUTED THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PE I N INDIA AND THE SUM WAS ALSO DEDUCTIBLE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE PE . THEREFORE THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE NON-RESIDENT FOR THE SERVICES UTILISED IN INDIA WERE CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA AND HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 OF THE ACT WOUL D BE ATTRACTED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TAX U/S 195 (1) NOR TAKING ANY ORDER U/S 195(2) FOR NIL DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE , THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40 (A)(I) ITA NOS.477,671/DEL/2013 M/S. SYNCRO LIFT INC. VS. ADIT & DDIT VS. M/S. SYNCROLIFT INC. 8 WERE CLEARLY ATTRACTED AND THE DISALLOWANCE WAS RIG HTLY MADE. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 66,32,1 70/- WERE PAID TO MR. T.D. LANGBRIDGE WHO DID NOT HAVE ANY OFFICE, ESTABLISHME NT IN INDIA DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 AND WHO WAS TAX RESIDENT OF SINGAPORE ENTITLED TO THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND SINGAPORE . H E DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 67 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE COPY OF A CERTIFI CATE FROM MR. T.D. LANGBRIDGE TO THIS EFFECT. THE LD. AR, HOWEVER, COULD NOT SPECIFI CALLY ANSWER OUR QUERY AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE U/S 195(2) FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE LD. AR ALSO COULD NOT POINT OUT TO A NY OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH COULD ESTABLISH THE STATUS OF MR. LANGBRIDGE VIS--VIS TH E PROVISIONS OF INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE AND IT IS OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED B Y MR. T.D. LANGBRIDGE IS AT BEST SELF SERVING DOCUMENT. THE CLAIM IS NOT SUPPORTED B Y ANY OTHER INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT DEALT WITH TH IS ISSUE IN A PROPER MANNER AND HAS DELETED THE ADDITION WITHOUT RECORDING ANY FIND ING OF FACT. THEREFORE, ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE OVERALL FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO REMIT THE MA TTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR A DENOVO ADJUDICATION ON THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF RS. 66,32,170/- PAID AS TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES FEE IS ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUC TION OR NOT, IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AFTER DULY C ONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCES WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED OR MAY BE SUBMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESEE SHALL BE GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE THE ORDER IS PASSED. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO S. 2, 3 AND 4 OF THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS.477,671/DEL/2013 M/S. SYNCRO LIFT INC. VS. ADIT & DDIT VS. M/S. SYNCROLIFT INC. 9 11. GROUND NO. 6 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND D OES NOT NEED ADJUDICATION. 12. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (S UDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: THE 7. 10. 2015 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 5.10.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 6.10.2 015 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER