Comptel Communications India Private Lmited, New Delhi V. NeAC, Delhi

ITA 479/DEL/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3124 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I1
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Application of stay; Set aside
• Section: 144C

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH FRIDAY/A NEW DELHI ) BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 479/DEL/2021 AY : 2016-17 AND STAY APPLICATION NO.70/DEL/2021 (IN ITA NO. 479/DEL/2021) AY : 2016-17 COMPTEL COMMUNICATIONS INDIA VS. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMEN T PRIVATE LIMITED, CENTRE, NEW DELHI KHASRA NO. 37/11, 37/28, KAPASHERA BEHIND RAJASTHAN HIGHWAY PETROL PUMP, NEW DELHI 110 037 PAN: AAECC8166G) ( APPLICANT) ( RESPONDENT ) APPLICANT BY : SH. DEEPAK CHOPRA, ADV, & SH. ANKU L GOYAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SH. MAHESH THAKUR, SR. DR. ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, VP THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW 2 DELHI DATED 30.03.2021 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2016-17 CONSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTIONS PASSED BY THE LD. DRP U/S. 144C DATED 16.10.2020 WHEN THE CAPTIONED STAY APPLICATION CAME UP FOR HEARING, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ENTI RE DISPUTED DEMAND OF RS. 6,34,21,040/- IS ON ACCOUNT OF A SINGLE ADD ITION OF RS. 12,06,83,668/-, WHICH HAS ARISEN ON THE BASIS OF A WRONG MANIFESTATION ON THE PART OF THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORIT IES REGARDING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. ELABORATING THE POINT, IT IS SOUGHT TO BE EXPLAINED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,06,83,668/- HAS BEEN MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF MISMATCH OF THE FIGURE OF REVENUE DISCLOSED IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT VIS--VIS FORM NO. 26AS. THE LD. AR POINTED OUT THA T ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY SUBMITTING BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, ON THE BASIS OF A RECONCILIATION STATEMENT THAT THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT STANDS OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. OUR ATTENTION W AS DRAWN TO PARA NO. 4.2 OF THE LD. DRPS ORDER DATED 16.10.2020 IN TH IS REGARD. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY WOULD INVOLVE APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL WHICH IS ALREADY ON RECORD AND, THEREFORE, A T THE PRESENT STAGE, IF IT IS DEEMED FIT, APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS MAY BE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY; AND, THUS THE APPEAL ITSELF C AN BE DISPOSED OFF. 2. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE SUGGESTION OF THE LD. AR WAS PUT- ACROSS TO THE LD. SR. DR WHO DOES NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTI ON TO THE 3 DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL ITSELF BY RESTORING THE MATTE R TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR APPROPRIATE VERIFICATION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 3. IN DEFERENCE TO THE PLEA OF BOTH SIDES, THE APPA EL IS BEING DISPOSED-OFF AT THIS STAGE ITSELF BY ADVERTING TO T HE PRELIMINARY PLEA OF THE APPELLANT TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR APPROPRIATE VERIFICATION OF THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE RIVAL COUNSELS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND THE RELEVANT RECORD PERUSED. FROM THE DISCUSSION IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW, IT CLEARLY EMERGES THAT THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSESSE E AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ON ACCOUNT OF RS. 12,06,83,668/ - REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE TAKEN AS PE R THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS VIS--VIS THE AMOUNT STATED IN FORM NO. 26AS. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEE N SUBJECTED TO TAX IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN OFFERED TO TAX IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE REVENUE RECOGNITION PRINCIPLES AND ACCOUNTING POLICY REGULARLY ADOPTED BY IT, AND THAT THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN OFFERED TO TAX IN ANOTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR. QUITE CLEARLY, IF THE PROPOSI TION CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSE IS FOUND TO BE IN ORDER, IT WOULD RESUL T IN A DOUBLE ADDITION, 4 IN AS MUCH AS ONCE IN THE OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR AN D AGAIN IN THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, A SITUATION WHICH IS IMPERM ISSIBLE. WHETHER OR NOT SUCH AN AMOUNT HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 IS A MATTER WHICH WOULD REQUIRE VERIFICATION OF THE FACTUAL STATE OF AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCE PT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NECESSARY EXERCISE BE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE OF APPELLANTS ASSERTIONS THAT THE N ECESSARY MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID PLEA IS ALREADY FORMING PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN FACT, THE LD. DRP HAS NOT P ROCEEDED TO CARRY OUT ANY VERIFICATION PRIMARILY NOTING THAT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE IT WAS THAT THE IMPGNED DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT WAS TAXED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 WHEREAS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN TAXED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017- 18. IN OUR VIEW, THE CORRECT APPROACH WOULD HAVE BEEN TO CARRY OUT A FAC TUAL VERIFICATION OF THE CLAIM RATHER THAN REJECTING IT OUT RIGHTLY. TH EREFORE, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DEEM IT F IT AND PROPER IN DEFERENCE TO PLEA OF BOTH THE SIDES TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R TO PASS A DECISION AFRESH ON THE ASPECT OF THE EFFICACY OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,06,83,668/- IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO LEAD SUCH EVIDENCES AS IT MAY DEEM FIT I N ORDER TO SUPPORT AND 5 SUBSTANTIATE ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON THE IMPUGNED A SPECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE SUBMIS SIONS AND THE MATERIAL PUT-FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AS PER LAW. 4. ACCORDINGLY, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE BEFORE US, THE CAPTIONED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISPOSED OF F AS ABOVE. SINCE, THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED-OFF, AS AFORESAID, THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS AND IS DISMISSED. ABOVE WAS DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED AT THE CONCLUSION OF VIRTUAL HEARING ON 28 TH MAY, 2021 IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES