Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
per the A.O. the contract receipt ought to be shown by the appellant in the P&L A/c should have been Rs. 25,22,590/- and since the appellant has shown Rs. 14,78,953/- in the P&L Account, the difference of Rs. 10,43,637/- (Rs. 25,22,590/- - Rs. 14,78,953/-) is stated as understatement of contract receipt. As has already been stated in Para 6.1 of this order, the method of calculation of the A.O in the case of BHEL in deriving this figure of Rs. 10,43,637/- is again full of loopholes and the A.O. has again followed his own unique hybrid system of accounting to arrive at this figure in a contrived manner. In this regard, M/s. BHEL vide their letter dated 19.03.2013 have clearly stated that as a contractee, they have not recognized the liability of the bill amounting to Rs. 11,80,867/- and they have not passed any accounting entry on this amount in their books of account in the financial year 2009-10. This amount was settled by M/s. BHEL in the Assessment year 2011-12. During the assessment year 2010-11, M/s. BHEL has paid Rs. 14,78,953/- which is reflected in the P &L A/C of the appellant as on 31.03.2010 and also in the TDS Certificate in Form 26AS. The ledger of M/s. BHEL in the books of appellant also reflects this figure. The amount of Rs. 11,80,677/- is considered in the Assessment year2011- 12 and in that year Rs. 12,97,447/- has been paid to the appellant by M/s. BHEL which includes an amount of Rs. 11,80,627/-. The figure of Rs. 12,97,447/- is reflected in the details of the sales' of the appellant in the assessment year 2011-12 and is also reflected in the TDS Certificate in Form 26AS. Thus considering all these aspects of this transaction of the appellant with M/s BHEL, I am of the opinion that the addition of Rs. 10,43,637/- is not justified and not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 10,43,637/- is hereby deleted.” 7. As discussed above we are unable to endorse the finding of CIT(A) in the absence of any assistance from the assessee or its counsel. It is needless to mention it is the responsibility and onus is on the respondent assessee to file all the documents in support of its claim before this Tribunal. Since there is no documents evidencing support of assessee’s claim and view of CIT(A), we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the order of Assessing Officer. Thus grounds raised by the revenue are allowed.
The cross objection filed by the assessee in C.O. NO. 32/Kol/2015, we find the assessee particularly contended at ground no. 6 of cross objection that above said cross objection was filed in support of order of CIT(A). In view of our discussion in revenue’s appeal in in above mentioned paragraphs and grounds raised by the assessee in cross objection becomes academic & C.O. No. 32/Kol/2015
M/s Rabin Singh Heavy Earth Movers Co. Pvt. Ltd. 6 which requires no adjudication from us. Thus grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 06-02-2019.
Sd/- Sd/- J. Sudhakar Reddy S.S. Viswanethra Ravi Accountant Member Judicial Member
Date: 06-02-2019