ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 10(1), CHENNAI vs. METRO TUNNELLING CHENNAI L & T SUCG JV, CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 20.08.2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-2013.

ITA No.2969/2018 :- 2 -:

The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: 2.

‘’1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is erroneous in law and opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case.

2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to give credit for TDS to the extent of cumulative sales as on 31.03.2012 amounting to Rs.1,48,61,86,578/-. This amount is value of closing stock and not the sales as referred by the Id. CIT(A).

2.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have referred to Sec. 199 read with rule 37BA wherein it is stated that TDS credit can be given only in the assessment year for which corresponding income is offered for taxation.

The brief facts of the case are as under: 3.

The Respondent-assessee namely M/s. Metro Tunnelling

Chennai L & T SUCG JV is an AOP and joint venture, is engaged in the

business of design and construction of underground stations. The

return of income for the AY 2012-13 was filed on 30.09.2012

disclosing total income of Rs. 5,49,75,140/-. Against the said return of

income, the assessment was completed by the Deputy Commissioner

of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 10(1) Chennai (hereinafter

called “AO”) vide order dated 30.03.2015 passed u/s. 143(3) of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.

5,76,42,520/-. While doing so, the AO denied credit for TDS of

ITA No.2969/2018 :- 3 -:

Rs.4,63,83,155/- received from Chennai Metro Rail Limited on the

ground that corresponding income was not offered to tax.

who vide impugned order had directed the Assessing Officer to give

credit to the extent of income offered to tax Rs.1,48,61,86,578/-

Tax (Appeals), the Revenue is in appeal before us challenging the

correctness of the decision of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals). It is submitted that the findings of the ld. Commissioner

of Income Tax (Appeals) that sales of Rs.1,48,61,86,578/- was offered

to tax is incorrect as the amount was shown in closing work in

progress and it is further submitted that in terms of provisions of

Section 199 of the Act credit for TDS can be given in the year in

which corresponding income is offered to tax.

reliance on the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

record. The only issue in the present appeal relates to whether or

not credit for TDS should be given for the year under consideration or

not. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for credit for TDS on

the ground that corresponding income was not offered to tax in the

ITA No.2969/2018 :- 4 -:

year under consideration. From the perusal of the Balance Sheet and

Profit and Loss Account, it is clear that assessee has been offering

profit contract receipt received on percentage of completion method,

during the year under consideration income from the contract receipt

was offered to the extent of Rs.146,88,58,224/- and therefore the

Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing credit for entire TDS.

The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rightly allowed the

credit in respect of income offered to tax. The decision of ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is in conformity with the

provisions of Section 199 of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any

reason to interfere with the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income

Tax (Appeals).

Order pronounced on 6th day of January, 2020, at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� माथन) (इंटूर� रामा राव) (GEORGE MATHAN) (INTURI RAMA RAO) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai �दनांक/Dated:6th January, 2020. KV आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 4. आयकर आयु�त/CIT 6. गाड� फाईल/GF