Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

These cross appeals are filed by the assessee and the Revenue are directed against the very same order of Ld. CIT(A)-4, Mumbai dt. 26.3.2012 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. As common issues are involved, we .

heard both these appeals together and dispose off the same by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

2. The assessee is aggrieved by the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition of Rs. 6,98,54,000/- made by AO under the head "income from other sources " as " profit and gains from business and profession " u/s. 28(iv) of the Act. On the very same issue the Revenue is aggrieved against this finding of the Ld. CIT(A) stating that the AO was correct in making the addition under the head" income from other sources". The assessee is further aggrieved by the addition of notional rent under the head 'Income from House property and on disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 6,11,173/. Revenue is aggrieved by the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition made by the AO on account of undisclosed consultancy fees.

28 Ground No. 10 is premature and accordingly dismissed.

29. Coming back to the Revenue's appeal, the only grievance remains to be decided relates to the deletion of the addition made by the AO on account of undisclosed consultancy fees.

30. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has credited an amount of Rs. 5,35,92,500/- under the head "consultancy fees". The assessee was asked to file the details. From the details submitted by the assessee, it is seen that the consultancy fees were received from two parties (i) P&O Steam Navigation Co., UK amounting to Rs. 4,60,92,500/- and (ii) JAFZA amounting to Rs. 75 lakhs. The AO further observed that as per the agreement of P&O Steam Navigation Co., the said company was to pay US Dollors 2,00,000/- per month towards monthly consulting fees for services to Indian terminals. According to the AO, the assessee was to receive a total of USD 24,00,000. However, the assessee has accounted only USD 10,50,000/-. The AO show caused to the assessee as to why the difference of USD 13,50,000/- should not be added as its business income for the year under consideration to which the assessee replied that as per the said agreement, the consultancy fees could be renegotiated as per mutual convenience and hence the amount offered is the only amount receivable during the year from P&O Steam Navigation Co. The said explanation of the assessee was rejected and the AO went on to make an addition of Rs. 5,34,65,000/- which is equivalent of USD 13,50,000.

.

31. When the matter was agitated before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its stand that the fees was negotiable and therefore the assessee has accounted for the fees actually receivable during the year under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) was convinced that from the agreement, it is clear that the consultancy fees can be changed annually and mutually agreed terms and such changed and revised as well as reduced consultancy fees has been received by the assessee during the year under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the mutually agreed terms and revised consultancy fees of USD 11,50,000/- for the year under consideration. However, at the same time, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that in the letter dt. 6.12.2010, the consultancy fees receivables has been shown as USD 10,50,000/- whereas in letter dt. 7.6.2011 and 28.2.2012, it has been shown as USD 11,50,000, and accordingly directed the AO to verify the correct amount of consultancy fees.

32. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a detailed statement showing year wise consultancy fees received and reiterated that the consultancy fees vary year after year and is negotiable.

33. We have considered the chart exhibited at page-53 of the Paper Book and agree with the submission of the Counsel that the fee is revised from time to time. However, at the same time, we find force in the direction of the Ld. CIT(A) to verify the correct figure of the consultancy fee receivable during the year whether it is USD 10,50,000 or USD 11,50,000. Accordingly, while deleting the addition made by the AO, we confirm the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to verify the actual figure of consultancy fee for the year under consideration. The grievance of the Revenue is restored back to the file of the AO as per above directions. Needless to mention that AO should give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground No. 4 of Revenue's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.