9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO and he cannot refuse to determine the correct receipts from ONGC - in Goetze (India) Ltd. V. CIT, deduction claimed by way of a letter before AO, was disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return - Appeal to the Supreme Court, as the decision was upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court, was dismissed making clear that the decision was limited to the power of assessing authority to entertain claim for deduction otherwise than by revised return, and did not impinge on the power of Tribunal. The assessee’s correct receipts from the contract of Cairn Energy as well as ONGC needs to be determined and thereafter Section 44BB should be applied on the correct receipts - so far as the receipts from Cairn Energy is concerned, now there remains no dispute - The only dispute remains is with regard to the receipts from ONGC which was originally disclosed by the assessee as ₹ 153.13 crores which was sought to be reduced to ₹ 143.85 crores - AO rejected the assessee’s claim on technical ground and did not go into the question that what was the correct receipts of the assessee from ONGC – thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is contrary to the view taken by Apex Court in the case of M/s Goetze Reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC). 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that by giving benefit to adjust negative figure to the extent of positive figure will allow reducing the revenues actually receiving in Cairn Energy Contract. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the facts that the assessee has claimed TDS on the gross receipts declared by the assessee in revised computation. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the specific finding of the AO that gross receipts constitutes receipts from two contracts, i.e., Cairn Energy Contract ONGC Contract, on which income is computed by the AO and that the income has been computed as per the provision of Sec. 44BB of the I.T. Act in which deemed profit rate of 10% is adopted on gross contractual revenues and thus gross revenues earned by NRC in respect of Cairn Energy Contract cannot be reduced to allow negative effect as directed by CIT(A). 5. The appellant prays for leave to add, amend, modify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce and should have been taken at ₹ 1,17,36,58,416/-. Thus, according to the assessee gross receipts under both the contract, should have been ₹ 2,61,22,44,824/- as against ₹ 2,64,62,49,589/- as filed as per computation filed with the return. The assessee s contention of acceptance of income as per their revise computation filed by them during the course of assessment proceedings have been considered. The same is not found to be acceptable. The receipts on account of contract with Cairn Energy India have been found to be reported less when compared to the figures disclosed by the Cairn Energy India on TDS verification, against the TDS reported and claimed by the assessee. Therefore, gross receipts from Cairn Energy India contract is being taken at ₹ 1,17,36,58,416/-. The assessee s claim of revision of income in respect of ONGC contract to take a lesser figure is not acceptable as the assessee is trying to file claim for revision of income during the course of assessment proceedings before the AO which is not allowable as the assessee should have followed the provision of I.T. Act in reference to filing the Revised Returns u/s 139(4) of I.T. Act. This is in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication to the case of the assessee because in the case under appeal before us. The assessee is not making any fresh claim but the assessee is only correcting the figure of receipts from Cairn Energy and ONGC. He further submitted that it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to determine the income correctly. In this regard, he referred to Circular No. 14(XL-35) dated 11.04.1955. He also referred to decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. Vs DCIT 15 SOT 252 wherein the ITAT has considered the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in Goetze India as well as above circular of the CBDT. He also referred to the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. Vs CIT 172 Taxman 258. He, therefore, submitted that the Assessing Officer may be directed to adopt the correct figure of receipts from ONGC as well. 11. The ld. DR on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. He stated that the Hon ble Apex Court has clearly laid down that there is no provision under the Income Tax Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return. He, therefore, stated that the assessee wanted to revise t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... educed the number cases selected for compulsory scrutiny and has also reduced the tax rates. This policy of the Government has resulted into higher tax revenues and simplification of laws. It is a settled position that the Circulars issued by the Board are binding on the subordinate income-tax authorities and if C.B.D.T. issues directions which arc beneficial to the assessees although the same may not be directly in consonance with the provisions of law, even then these instructions have to be given effect and adhered to by the concerned authorities. Thus, there is a strong case for reciprocity to be shown by the revenue Authorities while completing assessments and to avoid administrative hardships to the assessee. As far as the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) is concerned, there is no dispute that the same is binding on everybody concerned. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex court has also ruled that Appellate Tribunal may adjudicate the issue if a claim is made by any party subject to satisfaction of prescribed rules, hence, even the Hon'ble Apex court has not barred the assessee raise it's legal claim before Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this ground of the assessee stands accepted. 13. We entirely agree with the above observation of the ITAT Mumbai Bench. It is the duty of the Assessing Officer to determine the correct tax liability of the assessee. That during the assessment proceedings the assessee did not make any new claim but only modified the figure of receipts from Cairn Energy and ONGC. The Assessing Officer accepted the modification of the receipts from Cairn Energy which was upward revision but did not accept the modification of receipts from ONGC which was downward revision. In our opinion the correct determination of receipts is a part of the duty of the Assessing Officer and he cannot refuse to determine the correct receipts from ONGC. The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (supra) held that the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. did not impinge on the power of the Tribunal. The relevant observation their Lords reads as under: 17. In Goetze (India) Ltd. V. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before Assessing Officer, was disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
