9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned CIT (Appeals) as well as the learned Tribunal have deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of “Mobilization Advance” in the year under consideration, it cannot be said that the learned CIT (Appeals) as well as the learned Tribunal have committed any error. Tribunal has committed no error in confirming the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) in deleting the additions made on account of the “Mobilization Advance” account. In so far as the contention on behalf of the revenue that the appellate Tribunal and the learned CIT (Appeals) have erred in admitting fresh evidence without following due procedure under the Income Tax Rules is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such, no elaborate submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different contracts to be executed at four sites, namely, Surendranagar, Bhachau, Kachchh - Bhuj and Anjar from Gujarat Urban Development Company Limited. The assessee filed return of income for AY 2003-2004 declaring taxable income of ₹ 2,91,111/- on 12.11.2003. That the assessee while computing his taxable income had accounted for the receipts (on account of revenue receipt) at ₹ 2,26,16,653/-. At the same time, the assessee also engaged sub-contractor for executing the work procured by it and made total payments to those two sub contractors at ₹ 4,38,67,648/- and out of total payment of ₹ 4,38,67,648/- made by the assessee to the sub-contractors, the assessee considered payment of ₹ 1,70,23,292/- made to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee was called upon to explain why the receipts should not be taken at ₹ 4,89,16,270/- against ₹ 2,26,16,653/- shown by the assessee. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that out of total receipts of ₹ 4,89,16,270/-, receipt to the extent of ₹ 2,62,99,617/- were on account of Mobilization Advances and similarly, out of total payment of ₹ 4,38,67,648/- made to the sub contractors the expenditure accounted for in this year was only to the extent of ₹ 2,21,41,704/- paid to M/s Tarshil Associates and M/s Narayansingh Gulabsinghji. That the Assessing Officer accepted the version that the credit for TDS on Mobilization Advance of ₹ 2,62,99,617/- will be admissible in the year in whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the learned Tribunal, the revenue has preferred the present tax appeal with the aforesaid proposed questions of law. 7. We have heard Mrs. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the appellant at length. We have also considered and gone through the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, learned CIT (Appeals) as well as learned Tribunal. 8. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it has come on record that the assessee was following the system regularly showing the mobilization account and the amount of advance were always stated in the subsequent AY against bills in that year and the revenue had not raised any objection for that treatment. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when the learned CIT (Appeals) as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, the order of the CIT (Appeals) on this point is confirmed. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in confirming the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) in deleting the additions made on account of the Mobilization Advance account. 10. In so far as the contention on behalf of the revenue that the appellate Tribunal and the learned CIT (Appeals) have erred in admitting fresh evidence without following due procedure under the Income Tax Rules is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such, no elaborate submissions have been made on the aforesaid by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. Even otherwise, from the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
