9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1557 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B - HELD THAT - This addition is not sustainable as per hon ble jurisdictional high court s decision in CIT vs. M/s Vijay Shree Ltd. 2011 (9) TMI 30 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT has already decided the very issue in assessee s favour as relied upon in the CIT(A) s findings. We therefore affirm the CIT(A) s findings under challenge deleting the impugned disallowance. Addition of retention money - sole argument is that the Assessing Officer had rightly added the impugned retention money as assessee s income going by its accounting method regularly followed - HELD THAT - We find no merit in Revenue s instant grievance. It has come on record that this latter issue; although a recurring one is no more res integra between the parties since the tribunal s order(s) in assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 2017 (3) TMI 1161 - ITAT KOLKATA have already decided the same in assessee s favour. We wish to reiterate with the Revenue s pleadings have nowhere sought to draw any exception on facts or law in it impugned assessment year. We therefore affirm the CIT(A) s findings under challenge by adopting judicial consistency. The Revenue fails in its instant latter substantive grievance as well. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of employees' contribution to Provident Fund disallowance. 2. Disallowance/addition of retention money. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund Disallowance: The Revenue contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in deleting the disallowance of ?20,38,637/- related to employees' contribution to the Provident Fund, which was deposited after the due date specified in the statute. However, it was undisputed that the contribution was credited before the date of filing the return. The Tribunal referenced the jurisdictional High Court’s decision in CIT vs. M/s Vijay Shree Ltd. (2011) 224 Taxman 12 (Cal), which had already ruled in favor of the assessee on this issue. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)’s decision to delete the disallowance, thereby rejecting the Revenue’s appeal on this ground. 2. Disallowance/Addition of Retention Money: The second issue involved the disallowance/addition of ?7,72,10,900/- towards retention money by the Assessing Officer (AO), which was reversed by the CIT(A). The AO argued that the retention money, being part of the sale, should be treated as accrued income when the bills are raised, as the assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting. The AO further stated that the retention money should be recognized as income unless it is certain at the time of sale that the money will not be received, and any non-performance should be treated as bad debt. The assessee countered that retention money is only payable after satisfactory contract performance and cannot be considered accrued income until the customer verifies and accepts the performance. The assessee cited previous favorable rulings for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 by the ITAT and other judicial precedents, including the jurisdictional High Court’s decision in CIT vs. Simplex Concrete (Piles) India Pvt. Ltd. [179 ITR 8 (Cal)], which held that retention money does not accrue until the conditions of the contract are fulfilled. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, noting that the retention money should be taxed in the year of receipt, not when the invoice is raised, as the right to receive the money only arises upon satisfactory completion of the contract. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s findings, emphasizing judicial consistency and the lack of any new facts or legal arguments from the Revenue. The Tribunal referenced its prior decisions and the jurisdictional High Court’s rulings, concluding that the AO’s addition of the retention money was unjustified. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the ?7,72,10,900/- addition. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, affirming the CIT(A)’s decisions on both issues. The order was pronounced in open court on 17/01/2020.
|
