2025 (2) TMI 1074 - AT - Income Tax

Suppression of sale by the assessee - during the impugned financial year the assessee has executed certain contractual works for his clients and certain discrepancies were noted in the said documents - other addition in respect of expenses relating to exempt income u/s 14A also made - HELD THAT - We find that in this case the ld. AO has passed a very cryptic order and making addition by comparing the opening and closing WIP and then recording a conclusion in two lines that assessee has suppressed sales recorded outside the books of account. We have perused the appellate order in which the ld. CIT (A) has dealt with the receipts from each party for which the assessee executed contracts during the impugned financial year. Therefore no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT (A) and same is upheld by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. The appellate order has already been affirmed by the Tribunal while deciding the assessee s appeal. Consequently the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal considered an appeal by the Revenue against the National Faceless Appeal Centre's order for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The sole issue raised was the deletion of an addition of 9,16,63,588 made by the Assessing Officer on the grounds of suppression of sales by the assessee.The facts revealed that the assessee, engaged in contractorship, filed its income return declaring 1,15,920. During assessment, the Assessing Officer alleged suppression of sales amounting to 9,16,63,588. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT (A) partially allowed the appeal, sustaining an addition of 41,41,728 and deleting the remaining 8,75,21,860. The CIT (A) found discrepancies in the Assessing Officer's interpretation of the accounts and concluded that the assessee had not suppressed any sales.The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer misunderstood the accounts, especially regarding the cost of construction in progress, which was debited to the Profit and Loss Account. The appellant clarified that the revenue reported was from construction activities, not property sales. The Tribunal found the CIT (A)'s order well-reasoned and upheld it, noting that the Assessing Officer's conclusion of suppressed sales was unfounded. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, as the issue had already been addressed in the assessee's appeal, where the remaining addition was also deleted.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming the deletion of the addition related to alleged suppressed sales. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's arguments and concluded the case on 24.02.2025.