TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment proceedings, the assessee submitted all the bills raised by it on foreign company for commission and also filed Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs) issued by its banker HSBC for the consultancy fees received by it in convertible foreign exchange. From the perusal of the FIRC filed by the assessee, the A.O. found that the assessee had received excess payment against the corresponding bills amounting to US$ 73237.23 as under: Invoice No Bill Amount (US$) Receipt (US$) FLCI Sl. No. Excess RCPL/02-03/03 16257.17 60848.24 341334 15565.95 RCPL/02-03/05 29025.12 RCPL/02-03/08 6865.97 8837.87 344815 1971.9 RCPL/02-03/09 12721.76 81025.13 346514 RCPL/02-03/10 12603.99 55699.38 In this regard, it was explained by the assessee that the amount of US$1971 represented excess payment made by the foreign company which was subsequently adjusted in the next year against the invoice dated 23.05.2003. As regards the balance amounts allegedly received in excess, it was explained by the assessee that the corresponding receipts were not only against the Invoice No. 3, 5, 9 & 10 as mentioned in the relevant FIRCs but....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed 2 invoices on lspat with total value of Rs. 58,00,000/- . Its income from consultancy during the year was Rs. 201,66,333.66. iv. The payment against the invoices were deposited in the following bank accounts of the assessee - HSBC Bank Ltd., Shakespeare Sarani A/c No. 025347725511(EEFC) HSBC Bank Ltd., Shakespeare Sarani A/c No. 025347725001 (INR) v. The remittance received from Sudamin being in USD, were equally split by the bank for credit of 50% into EEFC account and balance 50% was converted and credited into INR. The assessee was explained that this was necessary as per RBI guidelines at the relevant time. For each and every remittance received in USD, the bankers', HSBC, issued a remittance certificate - Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate(FIRC) which is an advise as well as evidence of receipt of foreign currency on behalf of the assessee. The certificate contained added information of the name of the remitter, remitting bank, amount remitted in USD and purpose of remittance. Bank may also provide details of conversion of USD in INR and account of the receiver to which the remittance is credited. vi. There is no dispute regarding remittance from Ispat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ree. The assessee had produced books of account, bank statement, invoice and every single detail called for and no abnormality was found in the same. She did not show that the invoices were not recorded in the books, nor did she state that the remittance evidenced by the impugned FIRCs was not recorded in the books of account. In the absence of any such observation, it is out of place to presume that the there was excess receipt and/or there was concealed income. d) The Ld. ITO did not appreciate that there are some invoices, reference for which is not made in the FIRC. She failed to examine the entire position of invoicing and remittance from Sudamin and she only some of the invoices were picked up, she felt into belief that there is a case of excess income not disclosed by the assessee. x. The appellant submits herewith a statement of invoice raised upon Sudamin, its entries in the books of accounts, FIRCs against evidencing payment received, entries of remittances received in the books, statement of bank account to corroborate the fact that there is no case of concealment and the assessee has received just USD 2000 in excess from Sudamin against one remittance, which was sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar, the claim of the A.O. is substantiated that there was under reporting of income by the appellant. The claim of credit note being issued and adjustment made with other invoices of the party is just an afterthought and held to be not reliable. Therefore, I uphold the action of A.O. in making the addition of Rs. 34,56,797/- as income of the appellant for year under consideration." Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. As alleged by the A.O. in the assessment order, there were 3 excess amounts of US$ 15565.95, 1971.9 and 55699.38 received by the assessee which represented its concealed consultancy fees. As regards the first excess amount of Rs. US$ 15565.95 received by the assessee, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the total amount of US$ 60848.24 was actually received by the assessee against Invoice No. 3, 5 & 6 but in the relevant FIRCs issued by the bank, reference was made only to Invoice No. 3 & 5. He has invited our attention to the copy Invoice No.6 placed at page no 32 of the Paper Book to....