IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH "J", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.6879/M/2013
Assessment Year: 2009-10
M/s. JSW Infrastructure Ltd. DCIT, Circle 5(2),
JSW Centre, Aayakar Bhavan,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. M.K. Road,
Bandra (E), Mumbai
Mumbai 400 051
PAN: AABCJ6721D
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R.
Revenue by : Shri S.D. Shrivastava, D.R.
Date of Hearing : 26.06.2014
Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2014
ORDER
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)]
dated 23.10.13 relevant to assessment year 2009-10.
2. The assessee through its grounds of appeal has contested the
confirmation of disallowance, by the ld. CIT(A), of the consultancy charges
paid to M/s. Jindal Steel & Alloys Ltd. and M/s. Vrindavan Services Ltd. (the
alleged sister concerns of the assessee) holding that the same had not been
incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee.
3. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter
referred to as the AO) disallowed the consultancy charges of Rs.11 crore
2 ITA No.6879/M/2013
M/s. JSW Infrastructure Ltd.
claimed to have been paid by the assessee to M/s. Jindal Steel & Alloys Ltd.
and Rs.5 crore to M/s. Vrindavan Services Ltd. holding that the above said
M/s. Jindal Steel & Alloys Ltd. and M/s. Vrindavan Services Ltd. were
associate concerns of the assessee company and the assessee company had
failed to prove the rendering of any services by the said companies to the
assessee company.
4. In the first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding that the
assessee company failed to provide any convincing evidence which could
prove that actual services were provided by those two companies to the
assessee company. He also observed that the assessee company had failed to
prove that the said two companies were having proper infrastructure and
manpower to provide such services to the assessee company. It had also been
observed by him that the assessee company had failed to prove that the
payment of the aforementioned consultancy charges was made wholly and
exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. He therefore
confirmed the disallowance so made by the AO.
5. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the said M/s. Jindal
Steel & Alloys Ltd. and M/s. Vrindavan Services Ltd. were not the associate
concerns of the assessee company. The services were actually rendered by the
said companies to the assessee company. He has moved an application dated
23.06.14 for filing of additional evidence contending that the documents
attached with the application in the shape of letters, agreement etc. prove
beyond doubt that the services were actually rendered by the said M/s. Jindal
Steel & Alloys Ltd. and M/s. Vrindavan Services Ltd. to the assessee
company. He has further submitted that the above documents could not be
submitted before the lower authorities since the same were very old documents
and were not traceable due to the mistake committed by the record keeper in
3 ITA No.6879/M/2013
M/s. JSW Infrastructure Ltd.
the record room where the record of all group companies (numbering 80
approximately) were kept. He has further submitted that the above documents
are very much important and necessary for the just decision of the case.
6. We have gone through the application as well as the documents which
are sought to be produced by the assessee company by way of additional
evidence, which are consisting of copies of correspondence, agreements etc.
done by the said two companies with government agencies as well as the
assessee company. The above said documents as has been pleaded by the
assessee company were not traceable at the time of proceedings before the
lower authorities. Keeping in view the application of the assessee as well as
the nature of the documents, we feel that the documents sought to be produced
in evidence by the assessee are necessarily required to be looked into, as the
same go to the root of the case and are vital for the just and proper decision of
the case. We therefore allow the application of the assessee for additional
evidence and the matter is remanded back to the file of the AO for decision
afresh on the issue. Needless to say, the AO will give proper opportunity to
the assessee to produce necessary documents(additional evidences) before him.
Thereafter, the AO will decide the matter afresh giving proper opportunity to
the assessee to present its case.
7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.06.2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
(D. Karunakara Rao) (Sanjay Garg)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated: 26.06.2014.
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
4 ITA No.6879/M/2013
M/s. JSW Infrastructure Ltd.
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The CIT (A) Concerned, Mumbai
The DR "C" Bench
//True Copy// [
By Order
Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.
|
