MIDAS CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. I.T.O. -2(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 8427/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9168 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 04-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIAM
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC , BENCH MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI R. K. GUPTA , JM ITA NO. 8427 / MUM/ 20 1 1 ( ASSESSME NT YEAR : 200 8 - 20 09 ) M/S MIDAS CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., 28 , AGRA BUILDING 2 ND FLOOR, 121 N.G.ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI - 400 007. VS. ITO WD 2 (2) - 3 , MUMBAI - 20 PAN/GIR NO. : A A ACM 3096 M ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : MR. M. SUBRAMANIAM /REVENUE BY : MR. MOHIT JAIN DATE OF HEARING : 5 TH DEC . , 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 7 TH DEC. ,2012 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 5 - 9 - 2011 OF LEANED CIT(A) - 5 , MUMBAI RELA TING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 . 2 . THE FIRST ISSUE IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,28,250/ - . 3 . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF US $ 2850 FROM ITA NO. 8427 /20 1 1 2 ITS OVERSEAS CLIENT M/S CURRY LEAF LLC,DUBAI . THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION AS THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT APPEARING IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF US $ 2850 BY APPLYING RS. 45 PER DOLLAR, WHICH RESULTING ADDITION OF RS. 1,28,250/ - 4. LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S, I FOUND THAT THE ASSE SSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED ON THIS ISSUE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THIS AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN INCLUDED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE TOTAL GROSS RECEIPT SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AT RS . 7, 28,197/ - . THE DETAILS OF TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS ARE PLACED AT PAGE 16. THIS GROSS RECEIPT INCLUDES A SUM OF RS. 1,14,6 47/ - . THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 1,14,647/ - IS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED IN BANK OF INDIA. COPY OF THE SAME IS PLACED AT PAGE 17. RS. 1,14,647/ - IS CREDITED BY THE BANK ON ACCOUNT OF VALUE OF US $ 2850 WHICH WAS RECEIVED FROM DUBAI . WHATEVER THE CURRENCY RATE WAS THERE, THAT HAS BEEN CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE SAME HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE ADDITION BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED ITS RECEIPTS IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, I DELETE THIS ADDITION. 6 . THE SECOND GROUND RELATES TO CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 50,000/ - AND RS. 10,000/ - . ITA NO. 8427 /20 1 1 3 7 . THE AO ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF RS. 50,000/ - AND RS. 10,000/ - ON THE REASON THAT THE FEES WAS TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE CANDIDATES WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS THE NAME OF PERSON IS MENTIONED IN THE VO UCHER AND ACCORDINGLY, HE ESTIMATED THE RECEIPT AT RS. 60,000/ - AT THE RATE OF RS. 10,000/ - EACH. 8 . THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, I FOUN D THAT THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED THIS ISSUE ALSO . I NOTED THAT WHATEVER THE CANDIDATES WERE RECRUITED FROM DUBAI AND WHATEVER THE FEES WERE RECEIVED FROM DUBAI, THE SAME HAS BEEN CREDITED AS AND WHEN THE SAME IS RECEIVED. THEREFORE, ESTIMATING THE F EE WHICH WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE , IN MY VIEW, WAS NO T JUSTIFIED AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ANY EN QUIRY FROM THE PERSON CONCERNED THAT WHETHER THEY HAVE PAID ANY AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE OR NOT , NOR TH ERE WAS ANY OTHER MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING ESTIMATE . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT NO AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY IT. THE COPY OF EXPLANATION FILED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE IS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE S 43 AND 44. I HAVE SEEN THE EXPLANATION AND I AM SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION . EVEN AND OTHERWISE, I NOTED THAT THE FEES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AT RS. 2000/ - TO RS. 4000/ - PER PERSON AND NOT RS. 10 ,000/ - IN ANY CASE. THEREFORE, FOR THIS REASON ALSO, THE ITA NO. 8427 /20 1 1 4 ESTIMATE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS W ITHOUT ANY SOUND FOOTING. ACCOR DINGLY, I DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 60 ,000/ - ALSO. I O RDER ACCORDINGLY. 10 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 7 TH DAY OF DEC . 2012. 2012 SD/ - ( ) ( R.K.GUPTA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 07 / 1 2 / 2012 . /PKM , PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT . 3. / THE CIT(A) - X, MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT, MUMBAI