ROHIT MOHIT CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT 24, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3574/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 March 2017AY 2009-104 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT was justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's entries without making necessary inquiries. The CIT's order setting aside the assessment and directing a fresh assessment was upheld.

What were the facts?

The CIT invoked revisionary powers under Section 263, finding that the assessee had not offered contract receipts of Rs. 1,58,01,724/- to tax, despite TDS certificates reflecting these amounts. The Assessing Officer had failed to verify these discrepancies.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT was justified in revising the assessment order under Section 263 due to the AO's failure to verify discrepancies in contract receipts and TDS?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “D” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, DR
Hearing: 05/12/2016Pronounced: 14/03/2017

ORDER

PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. The appeal is directed against the order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) – 24, Mumbai.

2.

The sole ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is that the CIT has erred in law as well as on facts by passing order u/s 263 of the Act setting aside the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 22/12/2011; and directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to redo the assessment.

3.

In a nutshell, the facts are that the CIT, on verification of the assessment record and the assessment order, found the following discrepancies:

‘’It is seen that the sales have been shown at Rs. 10,50,87,317/- in the profit and loss account. However, from the TDS Certificates, it is seen that the assessee received contract receipts amounting to Rs. 1,58,01,724/- from the following three parties in addition to what is credited to the profit and loss account.

SL Name of the party Amount paid by parties TDS No. to assessee as per Form Amount No. 16A but not included (Rs.) in P&L A/c (Rs.) 1 Nepture Ventures & 89,43,683/- 2,02,662/- Developers P Ltd. 2 Nepture Construction 67,54,536/- 1,53,038/- 3 Neptune Developers 1,04,505/- 2,152/- & Construction Total 1,58,01,724/- 3,75,852/-

It is also observed that the TDS credit availed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 27,13,168/- includes the TDS amount which remained to be offered for taxation, as the same were not credited to the profit and loss account.

This has resulted in escapement of income to the extent of Rs. 1,58,01,724/-‘’ 3.1 In response to the show cause notice issued by the CIT on the above issues, the AR of the assessee filed a written submission which has been extracted by the CIT at page 2 – 5 of his order dated 21.03.2014. Having gone through the said submission, the CIT observed that the income mentioned in the TDS certificates are more than the income admitted in the profit & loss account. The AO should have obtained all the details from the assessee or made enquiries with the deductors and examined whether the income taxable in this year are admitted in the profit & loss account. The AO failed to do so. Therefore, the CIT passed an order u/s 263 setting aside the order passed by the AO. He directed the AO to redo the assessment to reconcile these two figures and assess the correct income for the impugned assessment year.

3.2 None appeared on behalf of the assessee. The learned DR supports the order passed by the CIT, thus stating that there is substantial difference of Rs. 1,58,01,714/- in the amount paid by the parties to the assessee as per Form No. 16A but not included in profit & loss account. He also points out that the assessee has claimed credit of TDS of Rs. 3,75,852/- on the above differential amount of Rs. 1,58,01,724/-.

4.

We have perused the relevant material on record. We have also heard the learned DR on the above issue. The fact remains that the AO has not verified in the instant case the amount paid by the parties to the assessee reflected in Form No. 16A but not included in the profit & loss account. The same comes to Rs. 1,58,01,724/-. On the other hand, the assessee has claimed credit of TDS of Rs. 3,75,852/- on the above amount. In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 109 4.1 Taxman 66 (SC), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that were the Assessing Officer had accepted entry in statement of account filed by the assessee, in absence of any supporting material without making any enquiry, exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner u/s 263(1) was justified. The ratio laid down in the above case squarely applies to the present one. In view of the above we hold that the CIT has rightly passed order u/s 263 in the present case.

5.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14/03/2017

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →