Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: VAT Audit :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: due date for vat payment :: form 3cd :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: empanelment :: TDS :: VAT RATES :: cpt
 
 
From the Courts »
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21

Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2),Room No. 306, CR Building,New Delhi vs. Safeways Insurance Brokers PLtd.,284, Jeewan Deep Annexe, 10,Parliament Street, New Delhi
September, 17th 2012
                                                              ITA NO. 533/Del/2010


                   IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                        DELHI BENCH "G", NEW DELHI
                 BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                                     AND
                 SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                            I.T.A. No. 533/Del/2010

                                 A.Y. : 2006-07
Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2),         vs. Safeways Insurance Brokers P
Room No. 306, CR Building,                 Ltd.,
New Delhi                                  284, Jeewan Deep Annexe, 10,
                                           Parliament Street, New Delhi
                                           (PAN/GIR NO. : AAHCSS5255P)
(Appellant )                               (Respondent )

             Assessee by                :   Sh. Sameer Kapoor, CA
            Department by               :   Dr. Prabha Kant, Sr. D.R.





                                     ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM
      This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the

Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-X, New Delhi                     dated

27.11.2009 pertaining to assessment year 2006-07.


2.    The      grounds raised read as under:-

      "1.          Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred, in law and
                   on the fact and circumstances of the case, in deleting
                   the addition of ` 32,05,325/-. Made by the Assessing
                   Officer on account of 50% of gross receipts.

      2.           Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred, in law and
                   on the fact and circumstances of the case, in deleting


                                       1
                                                         ITA NO. 533/Del/2010


                the addition of ` 8510/- made by the Assessing Officer
                on account of 50% of management fee receipt.

          3.    Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred, in law and
                on the fact and circumstances of the case, in deleting
                the addition of ` 51,466/- made by the Assessing
                Officer on account of interest income.

          4.    Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred, in law and
                on the fact and circumstances of the case, in deleting
                the addition of ` 80,210/- made by the Assessing
                Officer   on account of rent received from Oriental
                Insurance Co. Ltd.

          5.    Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred, in law and
                on the fact and circumstances of the case, in deleting
                the addition of ` 77,854/- made by the Assessing
                Officer on account of fee received for professional and
                technical services.

          6.    Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred, in law and
                on the fact and circumstances of the case, in deleting
                the addition of ` 2,19,223/- made by the Assessing
                Officer on account of unexplained investment.

          The appellant craves to amend, modify, alter, add or forego
          any ground of appeal at any time before or during the
          hearing of this appeal."

3.   In this case   assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer
u/s. 144 of the I.T. Act. Assessing Officer observed that assessee has


                                      2
                                                                    ITA NO. 533/Del/2010


not responded to statutory notices. Hence,               Assessing Officer        was
constrained to make the following additions:-

i)     50% of gross receipts (` 64,10,649)                      - ` 32,05,325

ii)    50% of Management fees received (` 17,019)               -         `8,510

iii)   100% of FDR interest income (`51,466)                    -       ` 51,466

iv)    Rent from Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.                -       ` 80,210

v)     Fee for professional and technical services received from

             -         Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.              -        ` 59,824

             -         Castrol India Ltd.                       -       ` 18,030/-

3.1    Further the Assessing Officer held that the in the absence of
any explanation regarding source of funds of ` 2,19,223/- incurred on
purchase of fixed assets should be treated as unexplained investment
as per provisions of section 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

4.     Upon assessee's appeal Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)
considered       the     assessee's   submissions      and   Assessing       Officer's
remand on the issue of gross receipts &                  management fee, FDR
interest. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) observed that there was
no basis for the Assessing Officer              to disallow 50% gross brokerage
receipt of ` 64,10,649/- + 50% management fees of 17019/- + 100%
of FDR interest income 51466/-. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)
further observed that Assessing Officer               has erred in ignoring the
audited accounts and rejecting the books of accounts.                   Further, Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (A) observed that proper opportunity was
not given to the company for complying with the notice issued. Ld.





                                            3
                                                         ITA NO. 533/Del/2010


Commissioner of Income Tax (A) observed that in any event the, the
exparte assessment made by the Assessing Officer        without looking
into the audited accounts as well as past assessment records of the
company is arbitrary     and also contrary to the provisions of law.
Accordingly, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) held that the addition
on account of gross receipt and management fees was liable to be
deleted.

4.1   Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) held that interest income of
` 51466/- cannot be treated as part of the business and was held to be
treated as income from other sources.      Ld. Commissioner of Income
Tax (A) concluded     that Assessing Officer   is directed to allow the
business expenditure as claimed by the assessee in the profit and loss
account against its business income and disallow expenses to the tune
of ` 2,58,854/- i.e. the expenses for which no evidence are available on
record as per the Remand Report.

4.2   Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) thereafter considered the
addition of ` 80,210/- as rent and ` 77,851/- as fee for professional and
technical services.   Assessee submitted before the Ld. Commissioner
of Income Tax (A) that Assessing Officer has added ` 80210/- as rental
income of the company and ` 77584/- as professional / technical fee to
the income of the company.      However, assessee submitted that the
same was being shown as brokerage income which included ` 80210/-
as rent and ` 59,824/- of professional / technical fee and ` 6,95,398/-
of income from commission or brokerage. A certificate from Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh was also produced        stating that the
brokerage income of ` 80,210/- has been wrongly stated as rent in the
TDS returns.    Further, assessee submitted that ` 18,030/- has been


                                    4
                                                           ITA NO. 533/Del/2010


shown net of TDS amount of ` 1,011/- in the management fee in the
profit and loss account.     Considering the above, Ld. Commissioner of
Income Tax (A) held that Assessing Officer is directed to delete the
addition of ` 80210/- and ` 77851/- from the income of the assessee.
Further, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) observed that assessee
has apparently understated the management fee by ` 1,011/- which is
to be added back to the income of the assessee.

4.3      Further, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) observed that
Assessing Officer has made an addition of ` 2,19,223/- as unexplained
investment incurred for purchase of fixed assets. Assessee submitted
before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) that Assessing Officer
has calculated the difference of WDV as on 31.3.2005 amounting to `
4,92,272/- and WDV as on 31.3.2006 amounting to ` 2,73,049/-, as `
2,19,223/-.      Hence, it was claimed that the investment in fixed assets
has reduced in the financial year 2005-06 as compared to immediately
preceding financial year by ` 2,19,223/-.          Hence, there was no
unexplained investment in the fixed assets.       Considering the above,
Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) held that he agreed with the
contention of the assessee, hence, the Assessing Officer was directed
to delete      the addition of ` 2,19,223/-, after making the necessary
verification as per law.

5.       Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us.

6.       We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material
produced.       As regards issue of addition on account of gross receipts
and management fee, assessee has submitted the copies of vouchers,
bills,    salary register and other details of expenditure and the same
were submitted as additional evidence under Rule 46A and sent for

                                      5
                                                          ITA NO. 533/Del/2010


verification     by the Assessing Officer.   Considering the Assessing
Officer's        remand   report   and   assessee's    submissions,       Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has given a finding that there was no
basis of addition on account of gross receipts and management fee.
We agree with the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) that Assessing
Officer     has erred in ignoring the audited accounts and rejecting the
books of account of the assessee.        He also held that     the exparte
assessment made by the Assessing Officer        without looking into the
audited accounts as well as past assessment records of the company
is arbitrary and also contrary     to the provisions of law.     We agree
with the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), that Assessing Officer
should have based his judgement on the records of the company for
earlier years.    Moreover, he could have also derived support from the
trend in the trade during the concerned previous year.         We also find
that on verification of the vouchers no major deficiency has been noted
by the Inspector of Income Tax Department/Assessing Officer in the
assessment proceedings.       Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in
the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) on the issue of
deletion of addition on account of gross receipt and management fee.

7.    As regards addition on account of FDR interest ` 51466/- , we find
that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has given a finding that the
same cannot be treated as part of the business income and he held
that it was rightly treated as income from other sources. We find that
on this issue Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has given a
reasonable order which does not need any interference on our part.

7.1   We also note that the Revenue in ground no. 3 has raised the
issue that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in law and on


                                     6
                                                          ITA NO. 533/Del/2010


facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of `
51466/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest income.
We find that this ground is misconceived, as Ld. Commissioner of
Income Tax (A) has not deleted the addition on this account.

8.   As regards    issue of addition on account of rent and fee for

professional and technical services, we find that Ld. Commissioner of

Income Tax (A) has given a finding that the same were already

included in the gross receipt i.e. brokerage income of the company.

The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)          has also considered         a

certificate of Oriental Insurance Company that the brokerage income

of ` 80210/- has been wrongly stated as rent in the TDS returns. Thus,

we find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is correct for holding

that addition in this   regard is not sustainable.     There was proper

explanation    and proper evidences      were     produced.    Hence, Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is correct in deleting the addition in

this regard.


9.   As regards the issue of addition on account of unexplained

investment, assessee submitted         before the Ld. Commissioner of

Income Tax (A) that the amount of ` 2,19,223/- was a difference

between WDV as on 31.3.2005 & 31.3.2006. Hence, Ld. Commissioner

of Income Tax (A) has correctly held that there is an apparent mistake

while calculating the unexplained investment.      Hence, he deleted the

                                   7
                                                            ITA NO. 533/Del/2010


addition.       He directed the Assessing Officer   to consider the same

after making necessary verification. Accordingly, we do not find any

infirmity in the order of all the issues and we uphold the same.


10.   In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.

      Order pronounced in the open court on 14/9/2012.

       Sd/-                                         Sd/-

       SUDHIR]
 [I.C. SUDHIR]                                [SHAMIM YAHYA]
JUDICIAL MEMBER                               ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Date 14/9/2012
"SRBHATNAGAR"
Copy forwarded to: -
1.    Appellant 2.       Respondent           3.    CIT    4.    CIT (A)
5.    DR, ITAT


                              TRUE COPY
                                                    By Order,


                                                      Assistant Registrar,
                                                      ITAT, Delhi Benches




                                      8
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
E-catalogue online catalogue E-brochure online brochure online product catalogue online product catalogue e-catalogue Indi

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions