Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S. Shcil Services Ltd

DDR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1272 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 ..Appellant vs.M/s. SHCIL Services Ltd. ..Respondent …........ Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant.Mr. Atul K. Jasani for respondent. …........ CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 6 JANUARY 2020 P.C.:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2.This Appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2010-2011. 3.The Appellant has challenged the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal in Income Tax Appeal No. 5743/Mum/2014 & 6019/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2010-2011)dated 27/7/2016. 4.The Appellant-Revenue has framed questions assubstantial questions of law : “A.Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT erred in notaccepting the fact that the payment made to M/s. SHCIL Ltd., being a holding company of the assesseefalls within the purview of section 194J of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 ? B.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT erred inholding that the sub-brokerage paid would fall underthe provisions of section 194H and not under theprovisions of section 194J, despite the holdingcompany providing various “Professional or TechnicalServices” and the assessee not specifically availing anyservices exclusively pertaining to buying & selling ofsecurities ? C.Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT erred in allowingthe total sub-brokerage amount of Rs.26,20,00,780/-u/s. 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 incurred bythe assessee ? D.Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT erred in allowingthe AO to rebut or examine the additional evidence inrespect of 3 Sundry Creditors submitted under Rule46A in order to meet the ends of natural justice andlaw ?” 5.So far as question Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned, we notethat the Tribunal in the impugned order has followed the decisionin the assessee’s appeals for the Assessment Year 2011-2012.Learned counsel for the parties have placed on record decision ofthis Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 1486 of 2016 in case ofassessee’s Appeals the Assessment Year 2011-2012. It is pointed 36. itxa 1272-17.doc out that the Court has held that these questions, namely questionNos. 1, 2 and 3, do not give rise to any substantial question of law. 6.On the question No.4, it is the contention of the Appellantthat the additional evidence of the three creditors produced by theRespondent – Assessee was taken into consideration by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without giving anopportunity to the Assessing Officer to rebut the same. TheTribunal has dealt with this contention. The Tribunal has notedthat the additional evidence was forwarded by Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) to the Assessing Officer for his commentsand the Assessing Officer in his remand report did not commenton the additional evidence. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly heldthat there was no violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rulesand opportunity was given to the Assessing Officer. 7.Therefore, no question of law arises in this Appeal.The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (M.S.KARNIK, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) Digitallysigned byDikshaDiksha RaneDate:Rane2020.01.0916:21:12+0530