Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

: 22 :

IT(TP)A Nos. 299 & 218/Bang/2014 11.2 The learned AO/DRP has erred in rejecting the invoice wise listing provided to the AO along with the invoice copies, shipping bills and Foreign inward remittances certificate (FIRC) for the entire export sales and computing the sales as per the APR and excise return filed, despite acknowledging and placing the same on record. 11.3 The learned AO/DRP has erred in rejecting the invoice-wise listing placed on record by the Appellant for export sales on the grounds that: 

                           Details                          Submissions dated

  Sales register ( Page 636 of File 3)                    13th December 2012

Party wise invoice wise listing (Submission at page 689 14th February 2013 (relevant page 692) of File 3 and listing at page nos. 1898 to 1979 - File 8) 100% Invoice and shipping bill copies obtained from 14th February 2013 Clearing House Agents ("CHA") and Authorized Dealer Bank (Citibank) [Submission at page 689 (relevant page 692-694) of File 3] FIRC for realization of the export proceeds obtained 14th February 2013 from the Citibank (Submission at page 689 (relevant page 695) of File 3 and copies of the FIRCs at page nos 739 to 1059 - File 4) Invoices, sales listings and FIRCs also given vide 13th December 2012 submission dated 13th December 2012 (submission at page 636, relevant portion at page 641) The above Reconciliation according to him explains the difference between the APR and segmental P & L. He laid emphasis on the fact that the AO in page 27 of assessment order acknowledges that the IT(TP)A Nos. 299 & 218/Bang/2014 above evidence was furnished and does not doubt the genuineness of these documents.

• DCIT v. SEEC Technologies P. Ltd [order dated 10 April 2012 in ITA No. 1614/Hyd/2010] • HCL EAI Services Ltd.v. DCIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 146 (Bangalore - Trib.) • Bajaj Tempo v CIT (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC ) • DCIT v. iGate Global Solutions Ltd ( judgment of this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 10 May 2013 in ITA No. 429/Bang/2012)
37. The learned counsel submitted that the sales as per APR should not be considered because, there is discrepancy in the amount of sales reported in APR vis-à-vis segmental profit and loss account, which is on account of the following: (i) APR invoice recorded as per date of shipment, while in financials when risk and reward of ownership is transferred. For sales on CIF terms ownership is transferred when goods reach the buyer. Errors in punching of wrong amounts (which is because APR is a manual procedure) was demonstrated with actual invoice copies. The learned counsel for Assessee submitted that the above discrepancies have been explained to the learned AO vide IT(TP)A Nos. 299 & 218/Bang/2014 submissions dated 13th December 2012 (Submission page number 636 and explanation in Appendix 1, relevant pages 642 to 644 - File 3) and 14th February 2013 along with invoices and FIRCs demonstrating realization of the export (Submission page no. 689 and Explanation in Annexure 1 page 690 to 702- file 3, relevant page 696; supporting FIRCs submitted there under at Page nos. 739 to 1059 - File 4). It was further submitted that for preparation of excise return APR was used a basis. Thus, there was a discrepancy between export sales as per excise return and segmental profit and loss account, which was also explained in the submission dated 14 February 2013 (Submission page number 689 and Explanation in Annexure 1 page 690 to 702- file 3). It was also submitted that the AO was not right in his observations that for export of components the Assessee has not furnished any details. The invoices along with FIRCs demonstrating realization of the export of components were furnished before the learned AO vide submissions dated 13th December 2012 at page 646, and 14 February 2013 (Submission at page 689, 695 of File 3 (invoice-wise sales listing in File No. 8 of the paper book includes sales of components as well) and supporting FIRCs submitted there under at Page nos. 739 to 1059 -
1. In continuance to the same, please find enclosed the foreign exchange workings for IDF unit 2 for your reference vide Annexure."
138. Similarly in a letter dated 14.2.2013, the Assessee has given complete export invoices and copies of FIRCs. Copies of these documents are at paper book 689, 690 and 695. The Assessee provided 4944 invoices (77 box files) along with FIRC evidencing realization for both IDF1 and IDF 2 units. The documents filed by the Assessee before the AO (copies of working of foreign exchange gain) are at paper book No.9,10,11 and 12 from pages-1980 to 2769 ) and it gives a complete break up of realized and unrealized foreign exchange gain, loss or gain in respect of each item of sale. The AO made no comment on all these evidence.