INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD vs. VISION VENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company engaged in the business of real estate. Assessee has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 30.11.2014 by admitting total income of Rs. Nil. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 22.12.2016. Subsequently, action u/s 154 was initiated by the AO as he found difference in receipts between 26AS and to the Profit and Loss account and thereby passed orders u/s 154 of the Act on 28.06.2018 wherein the net of short term capital gains were revised at Rs.1,29,82,292/- and while doing so, assessing officer made addition of Rs.1,12,68,403/- being the difference between From 26AS and P&L Account of the assessee company.

Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who granted part relief to the assessee.

Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), revenue is now in appeal before us.

On the date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee.

On the other hand, the Ld.DR strongly supported the order of Assessing Officer and further conceded that he has no objection, if the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to reconcile the difference to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer.

We have heard the ld.DR and perused the orders of lower authorities. Though before us, assessee did not appear however, it is noticed from the order passed under section 154 of the act, that the earlier order passed under section 143(3) was modified by the assessing officer. In the order it was mentioned as under :- “ The case was selected for scrutiny and scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the income tax act 1961 was completed on 22nd- 12-2016 by making disallowed for expenditure without bills and vouchers. Later it was observed from the fee P &L Account that the assessee company had offered the amount of Rupees 25,39,14,332/- towards revenue from operations. But as seen from 26AS details, the revenue from operations(194C) is Rupees 265182735/-thus the

In this case the income tax officer of the revenue had filed the note on tax effect, whereby the tax effect in the present appeal was 36,63,999/- only. In the light of the, same tribunal vide order dated 15th March, 2021 dismissed the appeal of the revenue on account of low tax effect. Subsequently, the Tribunal recalled the order since the same falls under exception to 10(c) of the circular No. 3 of 2018. We find before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee had filed the reconciliation and had explained the difference between the turnover mentioned in the books of account and 26-AS. The finding of the ld.CIT(A) is as under:- The appellant has filed a detailed reconciliation before the Assessing Officer, therefore there is no basis to make the quantum addition of the turnover difference in spite of already completing the case u/s. 143(3) and later on, on an explicit reply by the appellant in this regard, it is however important to note that there is a mobilization advance and material advance outstanding to the extent of Rs.59,32,61/- and Rs.48,30,599/- respectively n which the TDS credit has been claimed by the appellant and the income has not been accounted as the same remains as an advance in the hands of the appellant and not offered for income during the year. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition made on account

The ld.DR. for the revenue had submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconciliation of the turnover mentioned in the books of account and Form 26-AS. As mentioned hereabove, the above said exercises have already been carried out by the ld.CIT(A) and thereafter the ld.CIT(A) had deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer while passing the rectification order u/s. 154 of the I.T.Act.

In our view, no purpose would be served if the matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer in absence of infirmity being pointed out by the ld.DR., during the course of proceeding, in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A). Further, the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) in our opinion is in accordance with law and therefore, we approve the same. Accordingly, the order passed by ld.CIT(A) upheld.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.