Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARSHI & SMT. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL
ORDER Per Kavitha Rajagopal (JM):
This appeal has been filed by the assessee as against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai dated 31/07/2018 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-13.
The assessee has raised various grounds of appeal which are as follows:-
“1. TheAssessing Officer ('AO') has erred on facts in making addition of Rs. 39,81,45,267/- being the amount of alleged difference in opening balance of sundry creditors vis-a-vis closing balance in the previous year.
2 ITA 5495/Mum/2018 The Hon'ble CIT (Appeal) has erred in understanding the reconciliation provided by the appellant thereby resulting in an error on facts. He has erred in reducing the amount of 25,66,82,259/- pertaining to creditors for capital work in progress from the total creditors.` 2. The AO has not appreciated the facts correctly and erred on facts in making addition of Rs. 25,89,05,800/-being the amount of alleged difference observed on enquiry u/s 133(6) of the Act between the ledger accounts of Vendors and of the Appellant. The Hon'ble CIT (Appeal) has erred in disregarding the reconciliations and confirmations produced before him and confirmed the disallowance.
3. The AO erred in not appreciating facts and reducing the amount of CWIP of Rs. 21,95,28,213/- being the amount of alleged difference in CWIP vis-a-vis the actual debits by the ledger accounts submitted by the parties in response to notice u/s 133(6). The same parties differences have already been considered by him, thereby resulting in twice disallowance 4. The AO erred on facts in not accepting the contention of the Appellant that pre-operative expenses aggregating to Rs. 2,67,17,202/- should have been treated as 'Pre-operative' expenditure and allowed to be amortized under section 35D in subsequent years.
5. The AO also erred on facts in not allowing full credit for taxes deducted by the payees of the appellant and as reflected in Form 26AS and/or as per TDS certificate in Form 16A made by him. Rectification has been filed with the AO to this effect.”
The brief facts are that the assessee was in the process of setting up an integrated cement manufacturing facility comprising of blinker unit at Kutch and cement grinding unit at Surat. The assessee filed its return of income on 30/11/2012 declaring loss of Rs.2,68,51,925/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 30/03/2015 determining total income at Rs.105,98,00,230/- under the head “Income from business or profession”. The additions / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer are tabulated below:-
Sr.No. Nature of addition / disallowance Amount in (Rs.) Treatment by AO 1. Alleged discrepancy in opening balance 39,81,45,267 Added to of sundry creditors income 2. Alleged discrepancy arising out of 25,89,05,800 Added to 3 ITA 5495/Mum/2018 enquiry u/s 133(6) of the Act income 21,95,28,213 Reduced from Capital work in progress (CWIP) 3. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) 40,28,83,882 Added to Income 4. Disallowance of Revenue expenditure 2,67,17,202 Added to Income Aggrieved by this, the assessee was in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who had confirmed the said additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessee is in appeal before us.
During the appellate proceedings as there was no representation from the assessee’s side, we proceeded to hear the Ld.DR and perused the materials on record. It was observed that the assessee’s case is under liquidation process. Therefore, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal as the liquidation process is pending before the Hon’ble NCLT. However, the Official Liquidator is at liberty to file fresh appeal before us, if so advised.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th September, 2022.