Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- 14 -

after 2-3 months, i.e. in April & June-2011 cannot be a ground to hold that such sum is income relatable to the subsequent year. The Ld.AR submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot step into the shoes of a business man to dictate the terms of payment and it is quite possible to receive the payment little late within 2-3 months. It is the sole prerogative of a business man to decide how many invoices are to be raised in a given month keeping in mind the quantum of services rendered and also having regard to host of various other factors. Assessing Officer cannot hold that if more than one invoice is raised in a month, such invoices are not includible. The Ld.AR pointed out that a reference was made before the lower authorities to the Bank Realization Certificates (BRCs) which establishes the fact that the services have been rendered and payment in lieu of the same has been received as evident from BRCs. Confirmation of the concerned debtor (M/s.Suchita Enterprise Inc.) was also referred to as appearing at page no.63 of the paper-book. It was pointed out that assessee is registered STPI Unit and, therefore, also filed SOFTEX form with STPI wherein disputed turnover for Feb & March-2011 was also shown and declared. The Ld.AR thus submitted that the Assessing Officer has not brought any cogent evidence to hold that concerned two invoices pertained to subsequent year i.e. the year of payment. The Ld.AR contended that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and in the wake of positive evidences in the form of BRCs etc., the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that Kunal Chaturbhuj Nagrani vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12

- 19 -

subsequent assessment year and has been merely predated to claim wrongful exemption under s.10A being the last year of eligibility. The Assessing Officer computed the Gross Profits relating to this year and the subsequent year to prop up its case against the assessee. It is the case of Assessing Officer while the two invoices once taken into account in subsequent year, the realigned GP would be somewhat similar.

8.3. On objective consideration, we note that while it is factually correct that payment for two invoices were not received in the same manner as was received for other invoices raised to its customer, namely; M/s.Suchita Enterprise Inc. this aberration, in our view, cannot be a ground for doubting the invoices itself. The assessee has demonstrated from the 'Bank Realization Certificates' (BRCs) issued by the Bank that the assessee has received consideration against the services rendered for the period specified therein which falls in the FY 2010-11. Simply because the payment has been received in the subsequent year would not tantamount to deferral of accrual of income also to the subsequent year. Merely because the deduction under s.10A comes to an end in this year should not necessarily trigger unwarranted suspicion against the assessee. The case made out by the Assessing Officer towards fall in Gross Profit etc. is refutable. It is difficult to dislodge the claim of the assessee based on such shallow evidences. The assessee, on the other hand, requires to be believed on account of reporting the transactions in SOFTEX form Kunal Chaturbhuj Nagrani vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12

- 14 -

after 2-3 months, i.e. in April & June-2011 cannot be a ground to hold that such sum is income relatable to the subsequent year. The Ld.AR submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot step into the shoes of a business man to dictate the terms of payment and it is quite possible to receive the payment little late within 2-3 months. It is the sole prerogative of a business man to decide how many invoices are to be raised in a given month keeping in mind the quantum of services rendered and also having regard to host of various other factors. Assessing Officer cannot hold that if more than one invoice is raised in a month, such invoices are not includible. The Ld.AR pointed out that a reference was made before the lower authorities to the Bank Realization Certificates (BRCs) which establishes the fact that the services have been rendered and payment in lieu of the same has been received as evident from BRCs. Confirmation of the concerned debtor (M/s.Suchita Enterprise Inc.) was also referred to as appearing at page no.63 of the paper-book. It was pointed out that assessee is registered STPI Unit and, therefore, also filed SOFTEX form with STPI wherein disputed turnover for Feb & March-2011 was also shown and declared. The Ld.AR thus submitted that the Assessing Officer has not brought any cogent evidence to hold that concerned two invoices pertained to subsequent year i.e. the year of payment. The Ld.AR contended that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and in the wake of positive evidences in the form of BRCs etc., the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that Kunal Chaturbhuj Nagrani vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12

- 19 -

subsequent assessment year and has been merely predated to claim wrongful exemption under s.10A being the last year of eligibility. The Assessing Officer computed the Gross Profits relating to this year and the subsequent year to prop up its case against the assessee. It is the case of Assessing Officer while the two invoices once taken into account in subsequent year, the realigned GP would be somewhat similar.

8.3. On objective consideration, we note that while it is factually correct that payment for two invoices were not received in the same manner as was received for other invoices raised to its customer, namely; M/s.Suchita Enterprise Inc. this aberration, in our view, cannot be a ground for doubting the invoices itself. The assessee has demonstrated from the 'Bank Realization Certificates' (BRCs) issued by the Bank that the assessee has received consideration against the services rendered for the period specified therein which falls in the FY 2010-11. Simply because the payment has been received in the subsequent year would not tantamount to deferral of accrual of income also to the subsequent year. Merely because the deduction under s.10A comes to an end in this year should not necessarily trigger unwarranted suspicion against the assessee. The case made out by the Assessing Officer towards fall in Gross Profit etc. is refutable. It is difficult to dislodge the claim of the assessee based on such shallow evidences. The assessee, on the other hand, requires to be believed on account of reporting the transactions in SOFTEX form Kunal Chaturbhuj Nagrani vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12