ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) Vs. GLOBAL GEOPHYSICAL SERVICES LTD.
LAWS(IT)-2014-12-27
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on December 19,2014

Assistant Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation) Appellant
VERSUS
Global Geophysical Services Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.D.Agrawal, Vice -President - (1.) THIS appeal by the Revenue and Cross -objection by the assessee are directed against the order of learned CIT(A) -II, Dehradun dt. 20th March, 2013 for the asst. yr. 2010 -11. The cross -objection filed by the assessee is delayed by 67 days. The assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of Richard C. White, Director of the assessee company. In the delay condonation application, it is pointed out that the assessee is a foreign company having its office in United States of America. The assessee does not have any running contracts/projects in India and therefore, does not have any office or representative in India. The notice of the appeal filed by the Revenue was served upon the assessee's erstwhile consultants (M/s. Shilpi Agarwal & Co., Chartered Accountants) who forwarded the same to the assessee. Thereafter the assessee directed him to draft the cross -objection which was again sent by him for signature of the Director of the assessee who is in United States. In all this process there was a delay of 64 days which was unintentional and therefore, it may be condoned. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand, objected to the condonation of delay.
(2.) AFTER considering the arguments of both the sides and the facts of the case we are of the opinion that delay of filing of the cross -objection was due to sufficient cause. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing of cross -objection and admit the cross -objection for hearing on merits. In this appeal of the Revenue following grounds are raised : "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the adoption of negative value could have resulted in an income lower than the returned income, which is contrary to the view taken by apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT : (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 182 : (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that by giving benefit to adjust negative figure to the extent of positive figure will allow reducing the revenues actually received in Cairn Energy contract. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the facts that the assessee has claimed TDS on the gross receipts declared by the assessee in revised computation.
(3.) WHETHER on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the specific finding of the AO that gross receipts constitute receipts from two contracts, i.e., Cairn Energy Contract and ONGC Contract, on which income is computed by the AO and that the income has been computed as per the provision of s. 44BB of the IT Act in which deemed profit rate of 10 per cent is adopted on gross contractual revenues and thus gross revenues earned by NRC in respect of Cairn Energy contract cannot be reduced to allow negative effect as directed by CIT(A).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.