SICE-VAAN JOINT VENTURE,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT/CIRCLE 43(1), DELHI

That the Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that the appellant is a Special Purpose Vehicle executing a long-term contract for NHAI, and that the revenue from the said contract is recognized over the period of contract in accordance with the applicable method of accounting, resulting in a mere timing difference.

That the Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. AO has erred in not appreciating that TDS deduction by NHAI under section 194C and revenue recognition by the appellant are governed by different principles, and therefore Form 26AS cannot, by itself, determine taxable income of the appellant for the year under consideration.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO without properly considering the reconciliation statements, audited financial statements, tax audit report, Form 26AS details, and other supporting material filed by the appellant during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof, despite the appellant having demonstrated that the difference arose on account of revenue already offered to tax in earlier years and/or to be offered in subsequent years in relation to the same contract.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Ld. AO without bringing any independent material on record to show that the amount of Rs. 27,96,86,724 actually accrued to the appellant as income during the relevant previous year.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

That the Ld. AO has erred in levying interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) has erred while upholding the same.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary any of the above grounds during the pendency of the appeal.”

During proceedings before us, the ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by the CPC, Bengaluru by treating the difference between the receipts reflected in Form 26AS and the turnover declared in the return of income as unexplained business income. 4. The ld. counsel also argued that the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the reconciliation statement, audited financial statements, tax audit report and other supporting materials filed by the appellant during assessment and appellate proceedings. 5. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the findings given by the ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order and we have also considered the arguments of both the parties during proceedings

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.