DCIT, CIR-3, BANKURA, BANKURA vs. M/S RABIN SINGH HEAVY EARTH MOVERS CO-PVT. LTD., BANKURA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 789/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 February 2019AY 2010-20117 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the AO's order, stating that the assessee failed to provide supporting documents or representation. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as academic.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added amounts to the assessee's income for alleged understatement of contract receipts from SNC Power Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and BHEL. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, finding the AO's method of calculation flawed and unsupported by accounting principles.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made by the AO for understatement of contract receipts, and whether the assessee's failure to appear before the ITAT warrants setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 789/Kol/2015
C.O. No. 32/Kol/2015

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

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.

8.

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

1.

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.

9.

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

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →