Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi]
Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Jalpaiguri….…………………………………….…….……...Appellant Central Revenue Building Naya Basti Jalpaiguri -735 101 Shri Badri Prasad Sharma…………….………………………………..……………………..…. Respondent Raikatpara Post District – Jalpaiguri PIN – 735 101 [PAN : AJEPS 3318 N] Appearances by: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT, DR, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : January 01st, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : February 7th , 2018
O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-
This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Jalpaiguri, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 20/12/2013, for the Assessment Year 2010-11.
The assessee is an individual and has income from civil construction and trading in marbles. He filed his return of income on 15/10/2010, declaring total taxable income of Rs.9,81,090/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by determining the total income at Rs.68,85,530/-, making an addition of Rs.56,77,033/-, as undisclosed investment in contract business. He held that the assessee has undertaken contracts for total value of Rs.3,61,61,088/-, including brought forward contracts of Rs.48,63,928/-, since no closing work-in-progress or debtors had been declared as on 31.03.2009, the Assessing Officer made this addition. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal.
The ld. First Appellate Authority, held that he Assessing Officer had himself tabulated the details of work contracts executed by the assessee on page 5 of the Assessment Order. In this table, the Assessing Officer has clearly observed that the some of the works were carry forward and completed in the next Assessment Year. The assessee has produced work completion certificates issue from various agencies to prove that these contracts were completed in the subsequent years. He held that the presumption of the Assessing Officer that the assessee used his undisclosed money for completing the contract works allotted by the Government Agencies, is without any factual basis. He deleted the addition.
Aggrieve the revenue is in appeal before us.
5. After hearing rival contentions, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the Authorities below, and case-law cited, we hold as follows:- 5.1. The tabulation made by the Assessing Officer at page 5 of the assessment order is extracted for ready reference:-
5.2. A perusal of the same demonstrates that out of the 7 contracts, 3 contracts i.e. Contract No. 2, 4 & 7, were completed. Hence, there is no question of any work in progress as bills were raised and amounts received. In case of Contract Nos. 1,3 3 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Badri Prasad Sharma & 6, the Assessing Officer himself mentions that the entire amount of work in progress up to 31/03/2010, was billed and taken into profit and loss account. Thus, the question of determining work in progress for these contracts, does not arise. This leaves us with Contract No.
The contract was for Rs.22,66,864/-. The bill raised up to 21/12/2009, was for Rs.9,700/-, work in progress up to 31/03/2010, was disclosed as Rs.12,66,864/-. Accordingly, in the return, the accrued amount was taken at Rs.12,66,864/-. The party was debited with this amount. Thus, the entire work in progress was considered for the purpose of computing the income of the assessee along with the bill raised up to 21/12/2009. In any event, the assessee has filed evidence of completion of this work in the subsequent Assessment Year. This contract was accounted for in full and income determined in the subsequent Assessment Year. Hence, we do not find any merit in this appeal of the revenue and dismiss the same.
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.