ACIT, CIR-25, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SUDARSHAN PANJA, KOLKATA

- This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata’s order dated 18.02.2016 passed in case No.615/CIT(A)/7/R.-25/14-15, involving proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

For the reasons stated in Revenue’s condonation petition / affidavit dated 11.05.2016, we condone four days’ delay in filing of the instant appeal as learned counsel representing assessee is fair enough in not disputing the solemn averments therein.

We advert to Revenue’s twin substantive grounds seeking to revive advance from customers’ receipts and unmeasured bills addition of ₹1,04,50,000/- and ₹2,43,62,503/-; respectively added in the course of A.Y. 2011-12 ACIT, Circle-25, Kol. Vs. Sri Sudarshan Panja Page 2 assessment and deleted in the lower appellate proceedings. Mr Choudhury takes us to assessment order first of all indicating the Assessing Officer to have made the impugned addition(s) on account of difference in Form 26AS available without the department vis-à-vis taxpayer’s tad audit report alongwith TDS credit amounting to ₹44,45,836/- as against its income declared from job proceeds of ₹2,30,35,337/-. Mr. Choudhury’s case is that the assessee received total payments of ₹26,70,57,382/.40 and therefore the Assessing Officer had rightly added the differential amount of ₹440,22,045/- in assessment order dated 25.03.2014.

We notice at the outset that the Revenue’s grievance in the instant appeal does not seek to revive the above addition amount of ₹440,22,045/- but only two addition(s) pertaining to advance from customers’ and unmeasured bills (supra). The CIT(A)’s discussion qua these two heads read as under:- “(iii) Advance from customers Rs.1,04,50,000/-: In the reconciliation statement the appellant has given the details of advance from customers. Before me the appellant stated that the appellant received advances and the same were adjusted against the regular bill. The regular bills are admitted as income and when the bills are raised as per system of accounting. Therefore the advances are liquidated against the payment received. Since the appellant has already admitted the regular bills as per the contract value no separate addition is called for on account of advances. I have considered the submission made by the appellant and find sufficient force in the argument. The appellant has admitted the contract bills as per the bills raised and finalized as per the contract value. Therefore no separate addition is called for on account of advances received from the customers. The matter was remanded to the AO and the AO did not dispute the fact. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is deleted. (iv) RA BILLS Rs.2,43,62,503/-: The appellant has received the amount to the extent of Rs.2,43,62,503/- against the RA bills. These bills were not admitted in the year under consideration pending confirmation from contractee. These bills were admitted as receipt in the subsequent year as per the system of accounting regularly followed by the appellant. I have considered the submission made by the appellant and the appellant has given the details of the bills admitted in the subsequent year. This in the remand report. Therefore, the addition mad by the Assessing Officer is deleted.”

We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions reiterating respective stands of both the parties. There is no dispute about the