TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1863
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses Fees for technical services 5% of expense confirmed by CIT(A) 95% of expense deleted by CIT(A) 2017-18 15,31,812 2,91,04,429 2018-19 2,68,18,992 50,95,60,851 44,71,31,287 2019-20 1,46,79,717 27,89,14,615 33,79,21,470 2021-22 15,58,309 2,96,07,876 68,83,36,085 2022-23 5,40,000 1,02,60,000 3,98,28,090 Total 4.51,28,830 85,74,47,771 1,51,32,62,996 3. In so far as assessee's appeal for the A.Y.2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, the assessee has also challenged the validity of reopening u/s.147 on various grounds. For the sake of ready reference the legal issues raised in the appeal for the A.Y.2017-18 is being taken up first. 4. The brief facts qua the issue of validity of proceedings u/s.147 and notice u/s.148A are that the ld. AO had issued a notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act on 22/08/2022, which was for providing opportunity to the assessee before issuance of notice u/s.148A. The content of the notice reads as under:- "1. A survey proceedings u/s 133A was carried out in the case of ITD Cementation India Ltd. and its group entities on 26.10.2021 by the DDIT(Inv.)-7 (4), Mumbai. On perus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioned that it does not have any break-up of the referred sum of Rs.97.11 lakhs and therefore, assessee could not comment on the quantum of the expense. The copy of detail reply filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s. 148A(b) is appearing at pages 3-12 of the paper book. In the reply assessee had specifically stated that it does not have a detailed break-up of the amount and also had given detailed submissions with regard to nature of various expenses. However, the ld. AO in his order passed u/s. 148A(d) dated 30/08/2022 without providing any break-up has passed the order. The important contentions which has been raised are that the order u/s.148A(d) has been passed, firstly, without considering the submissions of the assessee; secondly- the order makes reference to various statements recorded during the course of survey and other details which had no mention in the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act; and lastly, order also mentions some other issues like SOP has not been followed while booking expenses in relation to certain parties which was not part of the show-cause notice. Based on the aforesaid infirmities and the order passed u/s.148A(d), following propositions ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...... (c) consider the reply of assessee furnished, if any, in response to the show-cause notice referred to in clause (b);" 10. It was thus submitted that such order passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Act in case of an assessee without considering submission made by the assessee is bad in law. The Ld. AR relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Ratan Bej v. PCIT (467 ITR 288) wherein it was held that non-consideration of the reply or objection furnished by the assessee not only amounts to violation of principles of natural justice but is also contravention of mandatory modalities which are to be followed during the course of enquiry proceedings under Section 148A of the Act (Para 8 and 8.1 of the referred order). Also, the assessing officer ought to have considered the objections raised by the petitioner and should have disposed of the same in terms of the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble SC in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. V. IΠΟ [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble SC has laid down an elaborate procedure as to the manner of dealing with objections raised against a notice under Section 148 of the Act (Para ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... find out if it was under the category of a "contingency" expense. 4 5.5 26 14 Very obvious anomalies were noticed in the tendering process with respect to expenses claimed in the head contingency expenses, while the tender was awarded to one of the parties, the other parties who had applied for the tender ironically belonged to the same group - for example, in a case where M/s. Sancheet Construction was offered the tender, the competing bids were placed by M/s. Sheth Infrastructure. However, fact is that both Sancheet Construction and Sheth Infrastructure were both shell entities that belonged to the same Tushar Munoat group of entities. 5 27 15 Statement of Sandeep Acharya 5.7 29 17 Statement of Vivek Agarwal 6 Below table 41 29 Hence, the total of the payments under "Looser" and "Contingency" heads is Rs. 9654.36 Lakhs. 14. In support, of the contention that if AO brings out new issues or material which was not part of the show cause notice issued u/s 148A(b), then notice issued u/s 148A is bad in law, ld. AR relied upon the Judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Tosca Master v. DCIT in W.P.(C) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tatement recorded on oath during the survey proceedings. iii. Also, in the notices issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act, the ld. AO has alleged that the income amounting to Rs. 97.11 Lakhs chargeable to tax, which is represented in the form of entries in the books of account has escaped assessment. However, no breakup of Rs. 97.11 Lakhs or supporting material was provided by the ld.AO to the assessee. Subsequently, the AO passed an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act wherein breakup of Rs. 96.54 Crores for all the assessment years under consideration was provided by the ld.AO. However, no reference is drawn/reconciliation is provided by the ld.AO with the breakup of Rs. 96.54 Crores towards the alleged income amounting to Rs. 97.11 Lakhs which has escaped assessment. 17. On the other hand ld. DR submitted that in the first show-cause notice, ld. AO has mentioned about the survey and post survey enquiries wherein it was found that assessee group was involved in debiting bogus expenditure by taking non-genuine purchases and sub-contract expenses. Further CTC reports and books of accounts were also examined which did not match with the total expenditure shown in the CTS report and the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s competitive while bidding for the tender However, in spite of all the possible estimations and precautions the Assessee at times is required to incur certain project execution related additional costs to mitigate unforeseen circumstances under the contract which obviously could not be budgeted at the time of bidding for a particular infrastructure project or at times even exceed the contingency cost estimated at the time of bidding for a particular project. 2.2. To address such non-budgeted uncertainties involved, it is a standard industry practice in public and private sectors to make provision for some amount in the bidding cost estimate towards "Contingency or Contingency Expenses" to cover for any additional efforts or additional expenses that may be necessary to complete such projects arising on account of non-budgeted uncertainties. At the same time, it is also possible that such amount provided towards "Contingency or Contingency Expenses" is not incurred at all as per estimates as no such unpredicted events happen during the course of the project. Further, in order to be competitive, the Assessee cannot overestimate contingency at the bidding stage. 2.3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich were not envisaged at the time of bidding for the tender c) Engineering issues and additional quantum of work d) Delay in completion of work due to various reasons like delay in approval, delay in availing site access and area hand over, design changes and increase in quantum of work thereof, delay due to authorities, accidental damage, force majeure event like pandemic, AOG, war, hostilities etc. 2.5.2. The above contingencies are further bifurcated into different types of contingency expenses largely on a subjective basis purely for internal classification and analysis perspective (which differs from project to project based on the understanding of the facts by projects management for internal MIS) with a broad periphery that unforeseen cost of the project to be reported under contingency provision for FTS and CTC analysis. However, a brief explanation of various nature of contingency expenses is given below from a broad level perspective and it is for the purpose of general understanding only: 2.5.2.1. Risk Cost-It is estimated cost assessed/projected by the Bid Team for managing the specific risks envisaged. Some of the examples of such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y trenches c) Unforeseen constraints at site during construction of super structures d) Adverse rock condition, uneven site area e) Buried vessels/machinery f) Unexpected site administrative costs-local issues, hindrances g) Additional costs on account of events such as landslides, earthquakes etc. h) Anything relating to site, which could not be anticipated at bidding stage 2.5.2.4. Special Contingencies-This type of contingency is projected by the top management of the Assessee after considering the nature of the project to be undertaken. Few examples of such contingencies are as under: a) Additional costs arising from or in connection with the Contract b) Indemnification of Client c) Costs of sanctioning authority d) Protection for loss or damage to construction equipment e) Legal risk that could have a negative impact on Assessee or asset's value. f) Risk of subsequent legislation g) Risk of abnormal escalation etc. 2.6. It is noted that the above list is not exhaustive in nature meaning there are many other types of risks that are perceived....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious cost heads where the cost has increased as a result of said contingencies events to be computed as on the date of revised estimate (CTC). c) Allocate the incurred actual cost in contingency heads those where were not specifically quantified/considered during the tender time and adjust balance contingency cost with the total provision. 2.10.2 At times it is difficult to clearly identify and allocate the cost increase on account of various contingencies events as on the date of revised estimate amongst the various cost and expense heads in the management reporting numbers. Thus, the same is then adjusted under a single cost head known as contingency expenses in order to keep the total cost incurred and accounted for in books and in the management reporting intact. 2.10.3 In this context, it is further essential to understand that the CTC is an estimate document being generated over the period for the purpose of arriving at the margin earned by the Assessee and for the purpose of considering the same for comparison with the budgeted numbers, which also act as a reference during estimation of bid on similar/identical projects or eventualities for future ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istrative exercise, not having any impact on the books of accounts. 2.11.4 Further, It is requested that aforesaid expenses are incurred wholly and exclusively for the business and hence, the same cannot be disallowed under Section 37(1) of the Act. 2.11.5. In view of the above, It is requested that the contingency expenses are genuine unforeseen expenses incurred by the Assessee and hence, there is no income which has escaped assessment." 20. From the perusal of the show-cause notice u/s. 148A(b) it is seen that first of all, no information or material was provided to the assessee which is a condition precedent before issuing any notice u/s.148A(b) and passing of order u/s.148A(d); and secondly, whatever was asked and raised in the show cause notice assessee has given its explanation for the contingency expense, its nature and why it is classified as contingency expense. As per the new law with effect from 1.04.2021, it is mandatory for the AO to provide all the information and material at the time of issue of notice u/s 148A(b) and this has been clearly spelt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal at para 101 and 106 (sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the clear directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC)." "Be that as it may, we hold that the reassessment proceedings initiated are unsustainable on the ground of violation of the procedure prescribed under section 148A(b) of the Act on account of failure of the Assessing Officer to provide the requisite material which ought to have been supplied along with the information in terms of the said section." Thus, the Courts have held that that without providing the information to the assessee and without furnishing the material based upon which the information is provided, the assessee cannot make effective reply and thereby the whole purpose and spirit of Section 148A(b) gets defeated and on this ground alone the entire re-assessment proceedings was held to be invalid and unsustainable. 22. Here in this case also as is evident from the show-cause notice, no such material was provided and even the ld. AO did not provide the information and the working of expenses of Rs. 97.11 lakhs which was the basis for reopening the assessment. If the AO has not provided the information and material in his notice under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....observations:- "28. Before concluding, and in our considered opinion, the impugned action is liable to be faulted since it clearly suffers from the following foundational illegality. As was rightly contended by Mr. Singh, the reasons which weigh upon an Assessing Officer proposing to reopen an assessment and form the bedrock of a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act alone are germane for the purposes of evaluating the validity of that action. It is those set of reasons and which form the basis for the Assessing Officer forming an opinion that income liable to tax has escaped assessment alone which would merit examination and evaluation. A decision to reopen or reassess cannot be based or sought to be justified either on additional reasons or those which may be supplied subsequently while disposing of objections preferred by an assessee. The statutory scheme of reassessment neither sanctions vacillation nor can a decision to trigger reassessment be sustained based upon an attempted supplementation aimed at bolstering or buttressing the original opinion. The reasons on the basis of which a reassessment is proposed to be initiated is not a field of shifting sand and which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d from the stand point of the reasons which formed the basis for the formation of opinion with respect to escapement of income. That opinion cannot be one of changing hues or sought to be shored upon fresh reasoning or a felt need to make further enquiries or undertake an exercise of verification. Ultimately, the Court would be primarily concerned with whether the reasons which formed the bedrock for formation of the requisite opinion are tenable and sufficient to warrant invocation of Section 148 of the Act. 24. Thus, if we follow the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it becomes manifest that foundational material alone would be relevant for the purpose of evaluating whether re-assessment powers were justifiably invoked. The ld. AO cannot take fresh ground while passing the order u/s. 148A(d). Thus, on this ground alone, the notices issued u/s.148 by the ld. AO deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, on the aforesaid grounds, the entire proceedings u/s.148A is quashed on the ground that firstly, no material or information was supplied to the assessee alongwith the notices u/s.148A(b) and there was no break-up given as to how the expenses of Rs. 97.11 l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same statement and the order passed u/s.148A(d) is pari-materia with the order passed u/s.148A(d) for the A.Y.2017-18 and 2018-19. Accordingly, in view of our finding given for the A.Y.2017-18, the notice u/s.148 for the A.Y.2019-20 is also quashed. 27. The assessee has also raised other grounds on account of non-mentioning of DIN and challenging the approval u/s.151. The same is not adjudicated as we have already quashed notices u/s.148 on the aforementioned reasons. 28. In so far as merits of the additions are concerned, it is seen that in all the assessment years i.e. A.Y.2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2022-23, they are exactly same wherein department has challenged the deletion of 95% of the expenses under the head „contingency expenses‟ and assessee has challenged sustaining of 5% of expenses confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Apart from that in Revenue's appeal, the department has challenged the deletion of amount of fees for technical services. The quantum of addition challenged by the assessee as well as by the department has already been quantified in the earlier part of the order. 29. In ground no. 2 of the grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2017-18, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Assessing Officer has been placed on page nos. 69 to 74 of the paper book for A.Y. 2017-18. The said paper, more particularly page no. 70 and 71 of the paper book, contains the budgeted cost estimated at the inception of the project, actual expenditure incurred till date and estimated cost to be incurred on the above project in future. The details of expenditure are recorded under different heads of expenditure. One of head of expenditure is 'contingency and design risk' containing the figure of Rs. 31,544.66 lacs incurred till date. 35. The ld. AO has noted that during the course of the survey operation, it is found that the assessee is using a unique method of accounting and the same is followed by the assessee group entities to record unaccounted "cash" expenses which are deployed to secure work contracts from the contractee organizations. Evidence found in the survey discovered the term "Contingency" used to denote those expenses which are not recorded in the books of account and are spent in cash for non-business purposes. The assessee prepares CTC reports which stand for Cost to Completion (CTC). The CTC reports provide a pen picture of the actual costs incur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hus, according to ld. AO, the said amount of Rs. 31,544.66 lacs of contingency and design risk is nothing but the expenditure incurred outside the books of account. The A.O. has concluded that the assessee has incurred bogus expenditure which has been booked in the regular books of account. By booking this bogus expenditure in the books of account, the assessee has generated cash which has been spent by the assessee outside the books of account and the same is not allowable. Accordingly, the A.O. has made disallowance of expenditure based on the chart prepared at the time of survey wherein the above figures have been bifurcated assessment year-wise. This chart is to be found on page no. 86 of the paper book. However, while disallowing the expenditure, the Assessing Officer has excluded following expenditure as the same has not been considered as bogus expenditure by the Assessing Officer. Particulars Amount (in Lakhs) Total contingency expenditure 31,544.66 Less: Expenses allowed by the A.O. himself in the assessment proceedings 2,465.71 Amount disallowed by the A.O. 29,078.95 39. The party wise break-up of the above expenditure was provided by the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons: a) The assessee has not followed the SOP for issuing PO/WO in the case of SNB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vishwanath Industries and V-Care, which was followed in issuing PO/WO in other expenses. The assessee has submitted that SOP has not been followed in some instances before issuing PO/WO due to exigencies of work. The reason given by assessee is not acceptable because SOP has been followed in other cases other than these bogus transactions. Also, assessee failed to provide any reason for such exigencies to divert the regular procedure followed to issue the PO/WO. Further, it is noticed that the amount involved is very high and in standard practice expenditure and exigencies get proper approval from concerned authorities. The assessee failed to submit any documentary evidence to support the claim of assessee that SOP has been diverted in issuing PO/WO for the above referred expenses due to exigencies like nature of nature of exigencies, prior or post approval for such exigencies, any standard practice followed for expenses due to exigencies. It is pertinent to mentioned here that Shri Madhusoodanan PM and Shri Sandip Acharya has admitted in their statement recorded on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be provided. 44. In support of genuineness of expenses the assessee has submitted exhaustive documents like invoice, measurement sheet, work completion certificate, employee details, ledger account, running account bills etc. before the Assessing Officer. It was pointed out that the Assessing Officer has not found any fault with such documents. As regards non compliance to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 133(6) of the Act, it was submitted that few of the parties have in fact replied to the Assessing Officer and has given complete particulars and documents in support of genuineness of the transactions. The copies of such replies were also furnished with the ld. CIT(A). As regards balance parties, it was submitted that all relevant and necessary documents were submitted by the assessee and non-compliance on account of such parties cannot be held against assessee in light of documents submitted. 45. As regards not following the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in respect of some of the purchases/sub-contracts, it was submitted that there could be various reasons for not following SOP. The SOP may not have been followed where the work is of an urgent nature and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the beginning of the project. Ostensibly, such non-genuine or bogus expenditure could not have been budgeted at the beginning of the project. Further Rs. 1,437.34 lacs has been mentioned in the seized material as contingency expenditure to be incurred in future. However, this is improbable to be bogus as bogus expenditure could not have been planned for future. 48. Before us reliance was placed upon the answer given by Shri Madhusoodanan. In answer to Q. no. 18 wherein, Shri Madhusoodanan had stated that the contingency expenses are essential expenses that could not have been foreseen when filing the tender bid. He further stated that these expenses like buying technical knowhow about the technical issue that have not been foreseen etc. are booked under this head. 49. It has been further submitted that the contingency expenses also include fees for technical services which have been paid to JV member or their related party. It was also pointed out that in the CTC report there is column named FTS (Final Tender Summary) which contains expenses budgeted at the beginning of the project on 18.07.2016. Contingency & Design expenses are also estimated at the beginning of the proje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tingency expenses as bogus is self-contradictory. 53. It has been further brought on record that the statement of employees which had been heavily relied upon by the AO were retracted. The ld. AO had called these employees for cross examination and has re-examined these employees during the course of the assessment proceedings. Ld. AO himself has noted that during the course of such cross examination / re-examination, when employees have stood by their retraction, but thereafter, no further questions have been asked during or after the re-examination. All these retractions were made immediately after the date of statements and submitted that the statement of Shri Montra was recorded on 27/10/2021 and 28/10/2021. A copy of the statement was requested on 02/11/2021 which was provided on 08/11/2021. The retraction was made immediately thereafter on 12/11/2021. These dates have been made available to the A.O. also during the course of re-examination of Shri Montra on 15/12/2022. The facts in respect of the retraction of Shri Madhusoodanan are also similar. Thus, once the statements which have been retracted cannot be used against the assessee. 54. Here the entire substratum of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst assessee by concluding that such expenses are non-genuine in nature. Therefore, conclusion drawn by the ld. AO on the basis of his observation of not following the SOP with respect to certain expanses cannot be upheld. 58. Another important thing which has to be kept in mind that all these expenses and the payments and the details are subject to audit by Chartered Accountant firms and no discrepancies have been pointed out by the Auditors. Further all these payments have been incurred through account payee cheques and not a single payment has been made in cash or by way of any other mode of payment. 59. Apart from that, ld. AO has not pointed out any discrepancy or objection against various documents submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and certain objection raised by the ld. CIT(A) that certain documents are missing which create some doubt however, there is absolutely no positive evidence to suggest that expenses are bogus and non-genuine and as submitted by the ld. Counsel the missing documents are only due to the reason of passage of time which could not be located. Once there is no positive evidence that any cash has been generated ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al services by the ld. AO u/s.37(1). For the sake of ready reference we are taking up the appeal for A.Y.2018-19 and our finding given therein will apply in all the years. 63. In Ground No.3 in the grounds of appeal in A.Y.2018-19, the Revenue has challenged the deletion by the ld. CIT(A) of disallowance of Rs. 44,71,31,287/- being fee for technical services made by the ld. AO. 64. The brief background of the facts in respect of seized material and recording of contingency expenses has been discussed in the earlier part of the order. The break-up of contingency and design risk amounting to Rs. 31,54,466/- has been given by Annexure-C to the statement of Shri Madhusoodanan P.M. recorded on 27/10/2021 which is as under:- Sr. No. Particulars Reference Amount in Lakhs 1 Amount paid to JV partners or related entities First 3 and last 2 items of the table 21,890.29 2 Contingency expenses Rest of the items of the table 9,654.37 Total 31,544.66 65. And the break-up of above referred amount of Rs. 21,890.29 lakhs is as under:- Sr. No Nature of expenses Amount (in Lakhs) Remarks 1. Fees for Technical Ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ient manner. Accordingly, the assessee entered into technical service agreement/work contracts with its JV partners and its related entities as they had relevant expertise viz i) Continental Engineering Corporation, ii) Tata Projects Limited iii) ITD Cem India Joint Venture, iv) ITD ITD Cem Joint Venture and v) CCECC-TPL JV. The assessee paid fees for technical services to them, the details of which are given at page no. 86 of the paper book for AY 2017-18. 70. The ld. AO based on the statement of Mr. Arbind Kumar Rai, has alleged that the Assessee has entered into various internal arrangements termed as Technical Service Agreements' with its JV partners to divert its own profit, although supposedly no technical services of any kind were rendered to the assessee JV. Based on the same, the AO has alleged that the Assessee has entered into a technical service agreement with Continental Engineering Corporation ('CEC) which has retired from the active partnership of the Assessee JV and amount paid to CEC by way of Technical Service Fees are claimed as allowable revenue expenses by the Assessee. 71. Further, the ld. AO has relied upon the statement of Shri Madhusoodanan P.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee with whom service providers have interacted for providing services and vice-versa. Further, the parties to which Fee for Technical Services has been made have failed to provide the details to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction with assessee in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. 6.9 It is also important to mention here that for the claim of expenses in the form of services taken, the delivery of services and communication with regards to services requested and received must be there. Mere submission of copy of agreement and invoices by the assessee for the expenses claimed for various services taken cannot be considered as proof of services being rendered. The same has been elaborated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachminarayan Madan Lal vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal. The relevant extract of the case law are as follows: "The mere existence of an agreement between the assessee and its selling agents or payment of certain amounts as commission assuming there was such payment, does not bind the Income tax Officer to hold that the payment was made exclusively and wholly for the purpose of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry of bills for FTS, iii. Work Orders; iv. Invoice copies on sample basis; v. Scope of service with each Technical Service providers; vi. Name of key persons involved; vii. Minutes of meetings and correspondence between Assessee and Technical Service Providers; viii. Detailed summary of design which were reviewed and approved by the Technical Service Providers; ix. Affidavit of persons of each entity stating work done by them and role played on behalf of Technical Service Providers. 78. It was also submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that all the technical service providers have responded to the notice issued u/s 133(6) to them. Further, the discrepancies pointed out by the ld.AO in the show cause notice were incorrect with regards to non-submission of details as the parties have submitted all the details. Most of these details were also submitted by the assessee in its reply during the assessment proceeding dated 14/12/2022. 79. It was also submitted to the CIT(A) that work orders were issued to each of the parties and they executed work in accordance with the scope defined in the respective agreement and further det....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... necessary documentary evidences in support of fees for technical services paid to JV Partners and related entities were submitted both before the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) and also before us in the paper book Volume 2,3 & 4 for A.Y.2018-19. From the perusal of these documents it can be seen that these are evidences relating to; (i) service agreement between assessee and technical service provider (ii) details of fees paid (iii) work order on sample basis (iv) invoices along with RA bills (v) affidavits of employees (vi) correspondence with CEC on sample basis (vii) minutes of the meetings held between representatives of the assessee and technical service provider (viii) extracts of designs reviewed by the technical service provider on sample basis (ix) Form 3CEB filed wherein assessee has reported international transaction (FTS payment) carried out with CEC for which no T. P. adjustment has been made and (x) responses filed by the technical service provider along with all supporting documents in response to notice issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act. 82. In so far as allegation raised by the ld. AO in the assessment order, the ld. Counsel submitted that same are incorrect and he has give....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-submissions of details about the personnel of the assessee with whom they have interacted for providing services. Rebuttal: Minutes of the meeting contains all details of representatives from the side of appellant as well as technical service provider. 83. As regards various shortcomings pointed out by the ld. AO in the reply to notice u/s. 133(6) filed by the parties to whom fees for technical services have been paid by the assessee, ld. Counsel submitted that these so called short comings pointed out by the ld. AO are non-existing looking to the overall documentary evidences submitted by the parties. 84. On the other hand ld. DR after referring to the various observations of the ld. AO as noted above strongly relied upon his various findings and reasoning given in the impugned order. 85. We have heard rival submissions and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned orders. One of the basis for drawing adverse inference by the ld. AO is based on statement of Shri Arbind Kumar Rai, wherein the ld. AO has alleged that assessee has entered into various internal arrangements termed as technical service agreements with its JV partners to divert its own p....