Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Subrata Mazumdar, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH 'G' : NEW DELHI)
SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
and
BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.2197/Del./2011
(ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07)
ACIT, Circle 23 (1), vs. Shri Subrata Mazumdar,
New Delhi. K - 203, C.R. Park,
New Delhi.
(PAN : AAIPM8365L)
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
ASSESSEE BY : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate
REVENUE by : Smt. S.D. George, Senior DR
ORDER
PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal filed by the revenue emanates from order of CIT (Appeals)- XXIII, New Delhi dated 28.02.2011 for the assessment year 2006-07. The ground s of appeal taken by the revenue are as under :-
"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition of Rs.23,57,862/- made by the A.O. on account of consultancy fee.
2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal."
2. The assessee is an individual and a chemical engineer & environmental consultant. During the year, the assessee has provided consultancy to various 2 ITA No.2197/Del./2011 foreign clients like Louis Berger, USA, JAS-ANZ, Australia & New Zealand and RVA Netherlands. During the year, the assessee has received consultancy in the currencies of US $, Australian $ and Euro through the banking channels. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee is receiving fixed monthly payments for services rendered by him to Louis Berger Pvt. Ltd. The CIT (A) has categorically made a finding that the finding of the Assessing Officer was factually wrong and the assessee was not getting Rs.30,000/- per month from its client. The facts of the record show that the assessee was giving consultancy to various foreign clients including Louis Berger Pvt. Ltd.. The invoices were raised on the basis of work done. Therefore, in our considered view, the assessee cannot be described as a salaried person for tax purposes. In view of these factual findings, we find no fault in the order of the CIT (A) and we dismiss the revenue's appeal.
3. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in open court on this 14th day of December, 2012.
Sd/- sd/-
(I.C. SUDHIR) (B.C. MEENA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated the 14th day of December, 2012
TS
Copy forwarded to:
1.Appellant
2.Respondent
3.CIT
4.CIT(A)-XXIII, New Delhi.
5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi.
AR, ITAT
NEW DELHI.