DADI MAA CONSULTANT & CONTRACT MANAGEMENT,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 55/CTK/2018Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 May 2019AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if the contractee settled a bill at a lesser amount than raised and deducted TDS accordingly, the differential amount cannot be treated as income. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the TDS certificate and payment.

What were the facts?

The assessee raised bills totaling Rs. 41,27,928, but the contractee recognized only Rs. 39,27,928, creating a difference of Rs. 2 lakhs. Discrepancies were noted between the bills raised, TDS certificates, and ledger accounts regarding specific amounts.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 2 lakhs on account of short receipt from the contractee is sustainable when the contractee recognized a lesser amount than billed, and if the TDS certificate supports the lesser payment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 55/ CTK/2018 Asse ssment Year: 20 09- 201 0

7.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the

materials available on record of the Tribunal. There is no dispute

to the fact that the assessee has raised bills of Rs.41,27,928/-,

but the contractee recognized bills to the extent of Rs.39,27,928/-

, which resulted the difference of Rs.2 lakhs. From the ledger

account, it is also seen that the assessee has raised bill dated

21.11.2008 amounting to Rs.4,92,230.00 as reflected in the

ledger account of Dadimaa Consultant & Contract Management,

however, as per TDS certificate, Bhusan Steel Limited has

accounted for Rs.2,92,230.00 and balance outstanding as per

ledger of Bhusan Steel Ltd., the amount was shown at

Rs.33,02,286.00. At the same time, it is seen that in Bill dated

21.11.2018 as reflected in the ledger of Sri Dadimaa Consultant &

Contract Management, the bill has been raised at Rs.2,92,230/-

and as per TDS certificate, Rs.4,92,230/- has been accounted for

and balance outstanding was shown at Rs.35,02,286/-. It is

clearly discernable from the reconciliation statements filed by the

assessee at the time of hearing. Once the contractee has not

recognized Rs 2 lakhs out of the bills raised by the assessee, same

cannot be treated as income of the assessee.

8.

I also point out in CIT(A)’s order at para 5, an amount of

Rs.2 lakhs was deleted on account of excess liability. I observe

P a g e 5 | 12

ITA No. 55/ CTK/2018 Asse ssment Year: 20 09- 201 0

that once again making addition of Rs.2 lakhs on account of

excess liability will amount to double addition. However, from

para 4 of the CIT(A)’s order, I observe that the ground of the

assessee challenging the addition on account of short receipt from

Bhusan Steel Limited has been confirmed which triggered Ground

No.2 of the assessee before this bench.

9.

A situation may be arisen that once the assessee raised bill

a higher amount and the contractee settles the same bill at a

lesser amount and deduct TDS accordingly and the differential

amount of lesser payment will obviously reflect in the ledger as

well as reconciliation statement.

10.

In view of foregoing discussion, I restore this issue to the

file of the Assessing Officer to verify the TDS certificate issued by

the contractee against bill dated 21.11.2008 amounting to

Rs.4,92,230/- and if the Assessing Officer finds that the

contractee has settled bill Rs.2,92,230/- and has made payment

accordingly after deducting TDS on the same amount, then,

impugned addition of Rs.2 lakhs on account of short receipt from

Bhusan Steel Limited being not sustainable should be deleted.

Accordingly, for this limited purpose, this issue is restored to the

file of the Assessing Officer.

P a g e 6 | 12

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →