2014 (8) TMI 718 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of cash settlement of bills Mercantile system followed - Held that - as the system of accounting followed by the assessee is mercantile, in our considered view the lower authorities were justified in taxing the balance amount of ₹ 35 lakhs as income of the assessee for the year under consideration. We are in agreement with the contention of the assessee that if ₹ 35 lakhs is taxed during the year consideration, then it would amount to double taxation as the assessee has shown the very same income in subsequent Assessment Year 2010-11, which has been accordingly taxed. We hold that the assessee shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority in this regard for doing the needful in the matter. Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Contrary assessment order prejudicial to assessee
2. Addition of cash settlement amount as income for specific assessment year
3. Discrepancy in disclosure of income and tax assessment for different assessment years

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged an assessment order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Ahmedabad, deemed contrary and prejudicial to the assessee. Grounds 1 and 2 were dismissed by the Authorized Representative during the hearing, being considered general in nature.

2. The main issue revolved around the addition of Rs. 35,00,000 as income for a specific assessment year. The assessee, a construction proprietor, claimed the amount arose from cash settlement of bills during the relevant financial year, duly disclosed in the return of income for the subsequent assessment year. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected this explanation, asserting the entire profit was accrued during the earlier assessment year, thus adding the amount to the income for that year. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing the mercantile accounting system followed by the assessee.

3. During the appeal, the Authorized Representative presented documents showing the inclusion of the disputed amount in the subsequent assessment year, arguing against double taxation. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' stance, emphasizing taxation based on the accounting method followed. The Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities, affirming the addition of the amount to the income for the year under consideration. However, recognizing the potential for double taxation, the Tribunal advised the assessee to seek appropriate relief to address the issue to prevent such duplication.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the addition of the cash settlement amount as income for the specific assessment year. The Tribunal acknowledged the risk of double taxation and advised the assessee to pursue corrective measures through the appropriate channels to address the potential duplication of taxation.