The other ground raised by the revenue that the assessee has not registered under A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and hence the assessee is a non charitable one, is an argument to be admitted only to be rejected. The provisions of Sections 2(15), 11 to 13 are very clear and self contained code in respect of institutions which are considered as charitable in nature and the exemptions that these institutions are eligible for under the Income tax Act.
Indisputably, certain discrepancies crept in while furnishing the information requisitioned by the AO from the assessee in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10 lacs from M/s Melco Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 5 lacs from M/s Poonam Corporation Ltd. towards share application money vis-à-vis information obtained by the AO from the aforesaid two companies u/s 133(6) of the Act.
It was the submission by the ld. AR that the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the IT Act on 23.01.2012 had not mentioned which order was erroneous nor had he mentioned the error in the assessment order. It was the submission that the show cause notice did not show as to how and what was the issue in which order the said issue arose which was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
Test of residence will be determined on the basis of number of days of stay in India and not by the interpretation adopted by the lower authorities in this case. It has not been disputed by the revenue that the number of days of the stay of assessee in India are less than 182 days. In these facts and circumstances the assessee’s arguments on this issue deserve to be upheld.
The provisions of section 68 should be read in conjunction with section 106 of the Evidence Act. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee has discharged the initial burden of proving identity, genuineness of transactions and also creditworthiness of the three creditors by producing their respective bank accounts. Entry in the pass book of a third party can be taken as a primary evidence in proof of the fact that loan was advanced by third party. Thus, the initial onus shifts onto the revenue to prove that the creditors lack creditworthiness and to come to such conclusion, the assessee cannot be asked to produce any evidence which is within the personal knowledge of the third party. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer did not examine the parties and proceeded on the assumption that creditors would not have saved any money to advance the loan. In the circumstances of the case, the view taken by the Accountant Member is in accordance with law. In other words, it is not a fit case to make addition under section 68.
Undisputedly, the assessee has filed original return under sub-section (1) of section 139. In the said return of income, the assessee has not claimed the loss. Sub-section (5) provides that where the assessee discovers any omission or a wrong statement, then he can file a revised return. Where the wrong statement or omission results in the claim of loss, when the return filed under section 139(5) is to be considered or not, is to be now seen. Whether omission of such a claim of loss in the original return of income is bona fide or not is also to be seen.
Basic question to be considered by us is whether the nature of services rendered by SEL fall within the ambit of technical, managerial and consultancy services as defined under Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-sec (1) to sec. 9 of the IT Act. As per the said explanation, fees for technical services means any consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for rendering any managerial, technical or consultancy services (including provision of services of technical or other personnel). As brought out in the earlier paragraphs of this order, the agreement between the assessee and M/s SEL stipulates that M/s SEL shall be responsible for the shipment of raw material to the assessee from its importers within the stipulated time and as per the specific quality and quantity.
As is the settled legal position, in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Exchange Ltd. (305 ITR 227) , a judicial decision acts retrospectively. As Their Lordships observed in this case, judges do not make the law, they only discover or find the correct law and, therefore, a rectification of mistake in an order can also be carried out in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment passed after the subject order is passed. The action of the CIT (Appeals) was thus correct and does not call for any interference.
The activities carried out by the foreign parties involved assembly, disassembly, inspection, reporting and evaluation. These are routine maintenance repairs and do not involve services of technical nature so as to be assessable as fees for technical services u/s 9(1)(vii). Routine repairs do not constitute ‘FTS’ as they are merely repair works and not technical services. Technical repairs are different from ‘technical services’ (Lufthansa Cargo 274 ITR (AT) 20 (Del) followed.
It is not in dispute that amount of Rs. 1,95,26,116/- was spent for participating in Hannover Fair held in Germany and for such participation, Steering Committee under the chairmanship of Commerce Secretary was constituted and modalities of participation was decided by the Organizing Committee under the Chairmanship of Additional Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, and as stated, the entire control was with the Ministry.
