DCIT, New Delhi v. M/s. Global Turbine Services (India) (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2887/DEL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 288720114 RSA 2010
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2887/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, New Delhi
Respondent M/s. Global Turbine Services (India) (P) Ltd., New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 13-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 13-08-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 11-08-2010
Next Hearing Date 11-08-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 10-06-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.2887 /DEL/10 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 DCIT CIRCLE 12(1) NEW DELHI. VS. GLOBAL TURBINE SERVICES (INDIA) (P) LTD. B-6/8 LSC 3 RD FLOOR SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI MANEESH BAHUGUNA SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K.M.GUPTA & SHRI ADITYA GUPTA CAS ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV JM: THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 29 TH MARCH 2001 PASSED FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07. THE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS WRONG PERVERSE ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF LAW WHICH IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. ITA NO. 2887/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN ENTERTAINING THE FRESH EVIDENCE(S) FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO COMMENT UPON THE SAME AS T HIS ACT OF THE CIT(A) WAS CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46(A ). 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER OR AMEN D ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF THE HE ARING. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A). HE POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED TECHNICAL SER VICE CHARGES IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AT RS. 1 22 46 051/-. THE A O DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THESE EXPENSES A LONG WITH DETAILS OF TDS MADE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE REQUIS ITE DETAILS BUT ACCORDING TO THE AO ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DET AILS EXHIBITING THE DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON RS. 99 65 000/- ONLY AND DID NOT SUBMIT THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF RS. 22 81 051/-. HE DISALLOWE D RS. 22 81 051/-. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CI T(A) AND APPRISED HIM AS TO HOW AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE DETAILS S UBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) AFTER GOING THROUGH THOSE DETA ILS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. 3. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND POINTED OUT THAT ASSESS EE HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE TECHNICAL CHARGES BUT HAS NOT FILED COPIES OF THE TDS RETURN. THESE RETURNS WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ITA NO. 2887/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 3 THEREFORE IT IS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE AO OUGH T TO HAVE BEEN GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE. HE PRAYED THAT ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND ISSUE BE R EMITTED BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR READJUDICATION. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT TDS RETURN WAS ALREADY WITH THE AO. ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL OTHER DETAILS. LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDE RED THOSE DETAILS AND THEREAFTER DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. THE ALLEGED TD S RETURN WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF LD. CIT(A) IN ADDITION TO OTHER DE TAILS. 4. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL SERVICE CHARGES :- S.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. TECHNICAL RETAINERSHIP CHARGES 22 81 051 2. PROFESSIONAL FEE (TECHNICAL) 88 94 340 3. ADMINISTRATION FEE FOR THE JOBS PERFORMED IN INDIA 10 70 660 TOTAL 1 22 46 051 5. IT HAS SUBMITTED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AND OTHER DE TAILS EXHIBITING THE FACT THAT TDS WAS DEDUCTED ON A SUM OF RS. 22 42 05 1/- ALSO. LD. AO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DETAILS RECORDED A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS EXHIBITING THE DEDUCTION OF TAX ON RS. 22 81 051/-. HE THEREFORE DISALLOWED THIS AMOUNT. LD. CIT(A) ON VE RIFICATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RECORDED A FINDING THAT TDS ON TH IS AMOUNT WAS ALSO ITA NO. 2887/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 4 DEDUCTED. HE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE TDS RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE COULD APPRECIATE THE ARGUMENT OF THE L D. DR IF AO AFTER RECEIPT OF LD. CIT(A)S ORDER COME OUT WITH SOME EV IDENCE INDICATING THE FACT THAT FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) IS FACTUALLY INCORR ECT. THERE IS NOTHING ON THE RECORD WHICH COULD SUGGEST THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO T DEDUCTED TDS ON RECEIPT RS. 22 81 051/- WHICH DESERVES TO BE DISALL OWED ON THAT GROUND. THEREFORE AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FIND ING OF LD. CIT(A) WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN IT. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.8.2010. SD/- [ A.K. GARODIA] [RAJPAL YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13.8.2010 VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT