IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.377/LKW/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner of Income v. JIL Information Tax, Circle-3 Technology Limited Shri P. K. Dey, JCIT, Range-3, 54, JA Annexe, Basant Lucknow. Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.

PAN:AAACJ8827B (Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA No.336/LKW/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 JIL Information Technology v. JCIT Commissioner of Limited Income Tax Range-III

54, JA Annexe, Basant Lok, Central Revenue Building, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Lucknow.

PAN:AAACJ8827B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by: Shri B. P. Yadav, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

O R D E R

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.:

(A). These cross appeals vide I.T.A. No.377/LKW/2016 and ITA. No.336/LKW/2016 have been filed by Revenue and the assessee, respectively; for assessment year 2011-12 against impugned appellate order dated 29.02.2016 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Lucknow [“CIT(A)”, for short]. The grounds of appeal are as under:

ITA.NO. 377/LKW/2016

1. The Ld. CIT(A)-1, Lucknow erred in law and on facts in giving relief of Rs. 5,60,11,260/- added as escaped turnover without appreciating the fact that the assessee was not following the inclusive method of accounting as prescribed by section 145 A of the LT. Act, 1961. Even otherwise, which allowing relief, the CIT(A) merely accepted the claim of the assessee in respect of exclusive system of accounting of Service Tax, VAT and reimbursement & reversal on the basis of details filed but without further examination of such receipts with documentary evidences so as to exclude the same form the taxable income.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Lucknow erred in law and on facts in giving relief of addition of Rs.3,81,98,261/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non deduction TDS, on the basis of additional evidences^-submitted by the assessee and without providing an opportunity to Assessing Officer in contravention to rule 46A of the LT. Act 1961. Moreover, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the payments were made to the customer on composite contract and therefore, provision of section u/s 40(a)(ia) was liable to be attracted.

3. That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 is contrary to the facts on record and bad in law.

4. Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal, as stated above as and when need of doing so arises with the prior permission of the Hon'ble Bench.

ITA.NO. 336/LKW/2016

(B) In this case, assessment order dated 27.03.2014 was passed u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.15,75,03,304/- as against returned income of Rs.4,88,50,613/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition of Rs.5,60,11,260/- was made on account of escaped turnover. Further, an addition of Rs.3,81,98,261/- was made on the ground that the assessee did not deduct tax at source out of contractual payments to M/s. Redington India Ltd. A further addition of Rs.30,00,000/- was made on account of unexplained cash withdrawal. Moreover, an addition of Rs.95,00,000/- was made out of the assessee’s claim of Rs.18,99,40,564/- towards salary & allowances, bonus and staff welfares expenses. Furthermore, an addition of Rs.19,43,170/- was also made on account of disallowance from assessee’s claim of Rs.3,88,63,362/- towards administration and other expenses. The relevant part of the assessment order is reproduced as under: -

(B.1) The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was partly allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 29.02.2016. The relevant portion of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: -

(C) The present appeals have been filed by Revenue and by assessee, against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 29.02.2016 of Ld. CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribuna