2021 (9) TMI 219 - AT - Income Tax

Receipts short admitted in the P L Account - gross receipts of services received by the assessee were shown more than the assessee offered receipts in P L Account only for the services - mobilization advances received, which was not proved by way of documentary evidence before the A.O - HELD THAT - Considering the contention of the DR that without cross verifying with the accounts of the company, the CIT(A) accepted the submissions of the assessee company, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the issue in disputed difference amount to the file of the A.O. with a direction re-decide the impugned issue that when the assessee has offered as part of turnover. If the A.O. found that the it has been offered as turnover in subsequent year, there will be no disallowance. If it is found, otherwise, the A.O. can decide the issue as per law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the matter. The assessee is directed to substantiate its claim by way documentary evidence and proper explanation. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal by Revenue against CIT(A)'s order for A.Y. 2014-15 under Income-Tax Act, 1961.
2. Delay in filing CO by assessee.
3. Discrepancy in gross receipts of services reported by assessee.
4. Treatment of difference in receipts as business income.
5. CIT(A)'s decision on the appeal.
6. Revenue's appeal before ITAT.
7. Arguments by ld. DR and ld. AR.
8. Decision by ITAT on disputed difference amount.
9. Remittal of CO to A.O.

Issue 1: Appeal by Revenue against CIT(A)'s order for A.Y. 2014-15 under Income-Tax Act, 1961:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 2014-15 under the Income-Tax Act, 1961, citing errors in granting relief without proper evidence and solely relying on the assessee's submissions.

Issue 2: Delay in filing CO by assessee:
The assessee filed a Cross Objection (CO) against the CIT(A)'s order, which suffered a delay of 48 days in filing. The delay was attributed to medical exigencies in the family, which was condoned by the ITAT based on established legal precedents.

Issue 3: Discrepancy in gross receipts of services reported by assessee:
The Assessing Officer (AO) noted a discrepancy in the gross receipts of services reported by the assessee, leading to a difference of ?2,79,32,398 in the Profit and Loss Account. The difference was claimed to be mobilization advances, but the AO found insufficient evidence to support this claim.

Issue 4: Treatment of difference in receipts as business income:
The AO treated the difference in receipts as business income due to lack of conclusive proof regarding mobilization advances. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need for proper substantiation and documentary evidence to support the claim.

Issue 5: CIT(A)'s decision on the appeal:
The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal by the assessee, focusing on the reconciliation of advances from customers and work in progress. The CIT(A) directed the taxation of certain advances as income, providing relief on specific grounds.

Issue 6: Revenue's appeal before ITAT:
The Revenue appealed before the ITAT, challenging the CIT(A)'s decision to grant relief to the assessee without thorough verification of underlying material and accounts for the relevant years.

Issue 7: Arguments by ld. DR and ld. AR:
The ld. DR argued that the CIT(A) accepted the assessee's submissions without proper cross-verification with the company's accounts, highlighting discrepancies in reported turnover. The ld. AR defended the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the treatment of mobilization advances.

Issue 8: Decision by ITAT on disputed difference amount:
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue of the disputed difference amount to the AO for reevaluation. The ITAT directed the assessee to provide documentary evidence and explanations to substantiate their claims.

Issue 9: Remittal of CO to A.O.:
The ITAT also remitted the Cross Objection (CO) raised by the assessee to the AO for addressing the objections raised, providing an opportunity for further review and clarification.

This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues, arguments presented, and the ITAT's decision on the matter, ensuring a detailed understanding of the legal judgment.

← Previous Next →