9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 33. 82 lakhs, that the assessee had argued before the FAA that the AO had wrongly considered the labour-charges-TDS certificates, that service tax, VAT were considered as income while calculating labour-charges receipts, that the assessee had filed detailed reconciliations before the FAA with regard to NLL and HAJ, that it had filed debited notes containing the details of service tax and TDS, that it had also explain as to how the retention money was affecting the bill amounts, that while deciding the appeal the FAA did not consider the debit notes and the Ledger accounts in proper perspective, that it had also explained as to why there was difference between the ledgers of both the parties and the ledgers maintained by it, that the FAA i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be contacted to file the second appeal, that the delay in filing the appeal was beyond the control of the assessee. During the course of hearing before us, the Authorised Representative(AR)reiterated the same arguments that are part of the affidavit and the application filed by the assessee for condoning the delay. Considering the circumstances and facts of the case and the period of delay, we are of the opinion that delay should be condoned. 3. Effective ground of appeal deals with addition of ₹ 33. 82 lakhs. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found from the certificates of TDS claim that the assessee was in receipt of labour charges of ₹ 9. 35 crores, that it has offered an amount of ₹ 9. 29 crores only. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 8. 72 lakhs, that the assessee had submitted the reconciliations without any supporting documents. Finally, he held that there was variation in labour charges of ₹ 33. 82 lakhs. He added the said sum to the total income the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Before him, it was argued that the assessee had completed one of the ongoing project before March, 2005 and had submitted the bill, that the bill was accounted by it in its books of accounts, that the other party passed the bill for payment in January, 2006 and accordingly TDS certificates was issued in the subsequent year, that the AO had accepted the above explanation , that whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 9. 29 crores only for taxation, that the assessee filed reconciliation in that regard, that he directed the assessee to file further reconciliation of the receipts in the cases of NLL and HAJ(Rs. 4. 78 crores and ₹ 2. 47 crores, respectively), that the AO concluded that there was difference in the receipt to the extent of ₹ 33. 82 lakhs, that the assessee had argued before the FAA that the AO had wrongly considered the labour-charges-TDS certificates, that service tax, VAT were considered as income while calculating labour-charges receipts, that the assessee had filed detailed reconciliations before the FAA with regard to NLL and HAJ, that it had filed debited notes containing the details of service tax and TDS, that it ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
