PESCO BEAM ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,SRIPERUMBUDUR vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

आदेश/ O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

:-2-: ITA No: 2623/Chny/2017 Facts of the case:- 2. M/s. Pesco Beam Environmental Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the assessee, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing, erection and commissioning of process plant equipment and systems. It filed its return of income for assessment year (ay) 2012-13 on 30.11.2012 admitting the t:otal income of Rs. 19,94,53,550/-. The book profit admitted by the assessee u/s. 115JB was at Rs. 12,39,78,107/-. On the scrutiny of case, the Assessing Officer determined the total income under normal provisions at Rs. 21,53,42,911/- and the book profit determined u/s. 115JB was at Rs.12,39,78,107/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld, CIT(A) dismissed the appeal holding, inter alia, the Ld, AR has fairly admitted that self-assessment tax was not paid even till 26.07.2017. As per sub-section 4 of section 249, no appeal under this chapter shall be admitted unless at the time of filing of appeal, the assessee has paid the tax due on the income returned by it. Since, the assessee has not paid the self- assessment tax on the returned income, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in view of the provisions of sub-section 4 of section 249 and hence he dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before us with the following grounds of appeal: “

1. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to w, facts and circumstances of the case to the extent prejudicial to the interests of the appellant and is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and Fair :-3-: ITA No: 2623/Chny/2017

2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction.

3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable.

4. For that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have granted time to the assessee to pay the self-assessment tax.”

pleading, inter alia, that the assessee company had inadvertently offered an Income of Rs. 82.37 crores relating to unbilled revenue which was neither received nor accrued. The self- assessment tax arising from such income was not paid by the assessee company. The said issue was not raised by the assessee company both before the AO as well as before the CIT(A). The unbilled revenue has been ascertained by adopting the percentage of completion method of the viable projects as on the date of balance sheet which also included the unrealized profit margins. The omission to raise specific ground in this regard should be reckoned as an inadvertent mistake in as much as the additional grounds raised now should accordingly be reckoned as the legal ground. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee's accounts were audited by Deloitte Haskins & Sells, CAs, and its return of income was supported by an audit report dated 29.10.2012, based on which the assessee itself has admitted its income under regular provision as well as under the provisions of section 115JB, This was subjected to the due scrutiny and the AO has completed the :-4-: ITA No: 2623/Chny/2017 assessment after making certain additions. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). From the grounds of appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has not taken the plea which is taken in the additional grounds of appeal. Therefore, the additional grounds filed by the assessee should not be admitted. Since, the assessee has not paid the self-assessment tax on the income returned i.e,, on the income admitted by the assessee, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable u/s. 249 and hence the Ld. CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal and therefore, he submitted that this appeal may be dismissed.

4. We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material. As submitted by the Ld. DR, the assessee filed its return of income based on an audit report by CA, supra. This was subjected to due scrutiny and the AO has made certain additions on which the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It is seen that the assessee has not taken any plea regarding the nonpayment of tax on the admitted income before the Ld. CIT(A) and also assessee has not given any reason, on which the assessee was prevented to raise the plea, before the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has wrongly computed to admitted income. Apart from this, there is no satisfactory evidence placed before us to substantiate the assessee's plea that the assessee wrongly computed the admitted income. Therefore, we do not find merit in the additional grounds of appeal and hence the additional grounds of appeal is not admitted. The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied on the provisions of sub-section 4 of section 249 and rightly dismissed the assessee's :-5-: ITA No: 2623/Chny/2017 appeal. Since, the assessee has not paid self-assessment tax on the returned income admitted by it, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 21st May, 2020 at Chennai.