FANS A.S.,NOIDA vs. DCIT,ACIT-INT-TAX-GURGAON, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3922/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 August 2026AY 2021-224 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the assessment order. It found no merit in the ground regarding the treatment of advances as no documentary evidence was provided. Similarly, the disallowance of contract charges as pertaining to prior/subsequent periods was also upheld due to lack of controverting material.

What were the facts?

The assessee, based in the Czech Republic with a project office in India, appealed an assessment order. The appeal faced numerous adjournments due to the assessee's inability to provide necessary documents. The key issues involved the treatment of advances received and the allowability of certain contract charges.

What were the issues?

Whether advances received should be treated as income and whether civil and installation charges were allowable deductions for the relevant assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against assessment order dated 31.10.2023 passed 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), for AY 2021-22.

2.

This appeal was filed by the assessee on 29.12.2023. The appeal was listed for hearing for the first time on 08.04.2024, since, non-appeared to represent the assessee on the date fixed, fresh notice was issued to the assessee through email as well as RPAD for 10.05.2024. Thereafter, the appeal was listed for hearing on 20 occasions. On the dates fixed for hearing, either, the appeal was adjourned at the written request of AR of the assessee or none-appeared on behalf of the assessee/appellant. The gist of proceedings is tabulated herein under:-

ITA 3922/DEL/2023 FANS A.S. Date Reasons for adjournment 08.04.2024 None appeared for assessee. 10.05.2024 None appeared for assessee. 07.08.2024 At the written request of assessee. 15.10.2024 None appeared for assessee. 12.11.2024 None appeared for assessee. 29.01.2025 Bench did not function. 03.04.2025 At the written request of assessee’s Representative. 15.05.2025 At the written request of assessee’s Representative. 13.07.2025 At the written request of assessee’s Representative. 21.08.2025 At the written request of assessee’s Representative. 27.08.2025 At the written request of assessee’s Representative. 30.09.2025 At written request of assessee’s Representative. 11.11.2025 None appeared for assessee. 15.12.2025 At written request of assessee’s Representative. 07.01.2026 At the written request of assessee’s Representative. 18.02.2026 None appeared for assessee. 02.04.2026 At the request of AR of the assessee. 13.04.2026 At the written request of assessee’s Representative 05.05.2026 At written request of assessee’s Representative. 26.05.2026 None appeared for assessee.

3.

The uniform reason for seeking repeated adjournments is that the assessee is based in Czech Republic and has only a project office in India. The AR is in the process of collating documents from the assessee company. Even, after 20 adjournments, the assessee is not able to provide necessary documents to the AR to pursue its appeal. This shows that the assessee is not keen to defended its appeal. Hence, the appeal is taken up for adjudication with the assistance of ld. DR and material already available on record.

4.

The assessee in appeal has assailed the assessment order on following grounds:

“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) and consequently the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) have grossly erred by denying the appellant has erred by treating the interest bearing loan/advances received from M/s NTPC as income of the Assessee Company, in the absence of any confirmation from the M/s NTPC without appreciating the fact that the confirmation has been submitted before the Hon'ble DRP as an additional evidence. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) and consequently the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) has erred by concluding that invoices submitted by the Assessee Company relating to civil contract charges and installation charges pertains to prior period or subsequent period and accordingly, not be allowed as deduction.” 5. Shri M.S. Nethrapal, representing the department vehemently defending the impugned order prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. The ld. DR reiterated the findings of AO.

ITA 3922/DEL/2023 FANS A.S. 6. We have heard the submissions made by ld. DR and have examined the orders of lower authorities. The assessee is having its registered office in Czech Republic and has project office in India. The assessee is engaged in the business of construction of Cooling towers. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee has received Rs. 24,52,43,968/- from M/s. Nabinagar Power Generating Company Limited (NPGCL) as per 26AS. However, the assessee has disclosed income of Rs.16,69,30,380/- only. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice dated 29.11.2022 to the assessee to explain the difference and reconcile the income with Form 26AS. The assessee vide submissions dated 08.12.2022 explained that the difference in amount as per Form 26AS and income disclosed was on account advance received from NPGCL. However, no documentary evidence was filed by the assessee before the AO to substantiate that the assessee has received loan/advance from NPGCL. Even, in proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) no documentary evidence was filed by the assessee, to substantiate alleged loan/advance from NPGCL. Though, the assessee in grounds of appeal has stated that the assessee had filed confirmation from NPGCL before the DRP as additional evidence, but no documentary evidence is available before us in support thereof. Hence, we find no merit in ground no. 1 of appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

7.

In ground no. 2 of appeal, the assessee has assailed findings of the AO in holding that the AO has wrongly denied deduction in respect of civil contract charges and installation charges. The AO has disallowed the claim holding it to be prior period or subsequent period expenses. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the assessee has furnished 67 invoices/bills aggregating to Rs.23,68,50,550/-. The AO after examining the bills found that the bills amounting to Rs.5,69,14,879/- pertain to the period outside financial year under appeal. The AO thus made disallowance of aforesaid amount. No controverting material is available before us. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with findings of the AO on this issue.

8.

In the result, impugned assessment order is upheld and appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 21st day of August, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- KRINWANT SAHAY VIKAS AWASTHY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 21-August-2026

ITA 3922/DEL/2023 FANS A.S.

Copy to: FANS A.S., B-69, SECTOR -64, NOIDA, NEAR NOIDA 1 SECTOR 62 METRO STATION, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR-201301, UTTAR PRADESH

DCIT,ACIT-INT-TAX-GURGAON, 3RD FLOOR, HSIDC BUILDING, UDHYOG 2 VIHAR, PHASE V, GURGAON-122016, HARYANA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →