The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/s. P.P. Overseas
ITAT Mumbai
I.T.A. No. 733/Mum/2010
(Assessment Year: 2006-07)
ORDER
Per R.V.Easwar, President:
This is an appeal by the revenue and the same relates to the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of exporting spices and food stuff. The appeal arises out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 30.12.2008.
2. The first ground is as under:-
“1. (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,02,252/- made by the Assessing Officer?
(b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that addition relates to C & F agency charges includes reimbursement and expenses falls under the ambit of section 1 94C of the Act.
(c) The learned CIT(A) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, erred in not appreciating the facts that clarification in view of Circular: No. 715, dated 8-8-1995 clearly states that any payment to C & F agent including reimbursement is contract.”
The brief facts in relation to the ground may be noticed. In the relevant accounting year the assessee debited Rs. 39,566/- under the head “C & F expenses”. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to furnish the party-wise details of the expenses and explain whether any tax was deducted at source as required by section 194C of the Act. In response to the same, the assessee submitted that C & F agency charges were paid to M/s. Vidhi Enterprises and Jayashree Shipping being their charges as agent of the assessee and that C & F expenses are reimbursement of expenses such as customs duty, food stuffing charges, DEPB licence/ miscellaneous expenses, conveyance and other charges paid. It was further submitted that considering the nature of the expenses, no tax was required to be deducted at source.





