ITAT partially allows Revenue's appeal, emphasizes natural justice, upholds CIT(A)'s decision, deletes disallowances.

The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 40 (5), New Delhi Versus M/s. D.R. Exports International,

The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 40 (5), New Delhi Versus M/s. D.R. Exports International, - TMI Issues:
1. Disallowance of loss on rate settlement (Contracts) by accepting additional evidence without giving opportunity to the AO.
2. Dispute arising due to failure to fulfill contractual terms resulting in an arbitration award.
3. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for violation of section 195 of the Act.

Issue 1: Disallowance of loss on rate settlement (Contracts) by accepting additional evidence without giving opportunity to the AO:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of Rs. 2,97,70,427 made by the AO. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not follow Rule 46A of the IT Rule, 1962, as no remand report was called for. The ITAT directed the issue to be restored to the AO for verification based on necessary evidence to be furnished by the assessee. The ITAT emphasized providing the assessee with a hearing opportunity following principles of natural justice. Grounds 1 and 2 were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue 2: Dispute arising due to failure to fulfill contractual terms resulting in an arbitration award:
The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to establish whether any dispute arose due to contractual terms not being fulfilled, leading to an arbitration award. The ITAT noted that the issue was previously decided and remanded back to the AO for the AY 2010-11. The ITAT did not find any evidence on record to support the Revenue's claim. Therefore, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in deleting the addition of Rs. 56,05,298 made by the AO under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

Issue 3: Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for violation of section 195 of the Act:
The Revenue argued that the commission paid to foreign agents by the assessee was covered under section 195 dealing with TDS for payments to non-residents. However, the ITAT found that the services of the foreign agents were used for sales outside India, not within India. As the Assessing Officer did not establish whether the non-residents had a Permanent Establishment in India, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in deleting the addition of Rs. 56,05,298 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Ground 3 was dismissed, and the appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, directing the restoration of one issue to the AO for further verification while upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the other issues based on the lack of evidence and compliance with relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act.