9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ises out of the order the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( the Tribunal for short) dated 27.6.2008, where the Revenue has proposed the following question of law: Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition made on account of amount of ₹ 24,90,224/- as work receipt credited but not shown in receipt in acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the findings of the CIT (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. 5. Impugned order is assailed by the Revenue in the present appeal raising the aforementioned question of law. Learned Counsel Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, appearing for the Department, has extensively dealt with the orders of the adjudicating authorities and the material in support of these orders and submitted to the Court a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vices supplied by the parties. 7. The CIT (Appeals) was of the opinion that there was consistent practice of showing the advance receipt from the parties in balance-sheet and when the work is executed it is shown as receipt and offered for taxation. It was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer ought to have accepted this consistent practice, as the advance paid by a party does not become re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal has held that the advance received by the assessee, against the purchase of material at the site before the execution of work, cannot be counted to be an income of the assessee. More particularly, when it had been following the practice of showing the advance receipt from the parties in the balancesheet and when after the execution of the work, the said receipt was offered for the tax, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
