9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it self contradictory on the issue of opening stock/opening work in progress. The Ld. CIT(A) has committed injustice while rejecting the alternate plea of the assessee to accept the estimate of the opening work in progress and stating that it has been made only in the appellate proceedings and will require fresh examination facts. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to address to the facts that assessee is a partnership firm of to partners and have interest free loan of ₹ 20.70 lacs from friends/relatives in addition to interest free partner capital of ₹ 163.31 lacs whereas small amount of ₹ 6.50 lacs has been advanced and interest free funds are sufficient to cover interest free advance. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly distinguished the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the Munjal Sales Corporation from the case of assessee whereas facts of the both cases are similar. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 8. The appellant craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 2. The assessee has not pressed grounds No.5, 6 7 and therefore, the same are dismissed as not press ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l material purchased in the month of March, date-wise and site where these material had been consumed and complete details, datewise of bills raised in the month of March alongwith copies of the bills. The assessee submitted details which showed, as per the AO that some payment had been received by the assessee on 30th March and 31st March, 2007, but the copies of the bills raised in the month of March were not furnished. The AO asked the assessee to again furnish the copies of measurement Bills (MBs) for the month of March. The assessee submitted the payment voucher/MBs in respect of some of the contracts. The AO noted that the payment vouchers did not mention the date of the respective bills in the case of payments received from Airport Authority of India. The MB of Jalandhar Improvement Trust was filed which showed that bill of ₹ 42,28,790/- had been raised on 25.03.2007 against which payment was stated to have been received on 30th March 2007. However, no MBs/payment vouchers or other vouchers to show the date on which bills were raised in other cases were filed. The AO, therefore, asked the assessee to show that all the work done till 31.03.2007 had been accounted for du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng stock/WIP:- a) Material = ₹ 22,27,607/- as per the details furnished by the assessee. b) Wages = ₹ 9,21,979/- being 1/6th of the expenditure incurred under this head in the month of March, 2007. c) Earth Filling : ₹ 4,35,916/-. The AO noted that expenditure of ₹ 3,06,500/- was incurred by the assessee in executing the contracts in Punjab from 26th March, 2007 to 31st March, 2007 which she held obviously have to form part of the closing WIP. Expenditure in other states of ₹ 7,76,5000/- was incurred under this head in the month of March and the AO also took 1/6th of such expenses on pro-rata basis and added ₹ 4,35,916/- as closing WIP. d) Fuel expenses = ₹ 56,220/-. The added ₹ 56,220/- on account of fuel consumption on pro-rata basis to the closing WIP. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. Sandeep Vijh, CA, at the outset pointed out at PB-12 where the assessee has been following the same method of accounting for the past many years. He pointed out that for the A.Y. 2004-05 where the assessment made was under section 143(3) and also for the A.Y. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07 to 31st March, 2007 and accordingly valued the purchases of the material at ₹ 22,27,607/- to which the AO added expenses of wages, earth filling and fuel expenses totaling to ₹ 36,41,702/- for which the addition was made. Whereas this is not a fact, the assessee had received the payment from other contractees even upto 31st March. Such computation of income is without any basis and is on surmises and conjectures and therefore, cannot be subject matter of addition in the present case. 7. The Ld. DR, Sh. Tarsem Lal, on the other hand, relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 188 ITR 44 (SC). He further argued that the assessee has not accounted for work in progress and also relied upon the decision, relied upon by the AO. He also argued that the decisions relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused facts of the case. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee has been following the same method of accounting consistently for many years as pointed out at PB-12. This fact has not been rebutte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
