9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these facts, uphold reopening as valid. Addition towards increase in valuation of work in progress of the closing stock - Held that:- The addition made on estimate basis, has been deleted by the ld. CIT(A). Further this addition has been made on specific basis of the fact that the amount of ₹ 17,50,000/- received by the assessee from the three parties was not disclosed as a receipt in the P&L account for the reasons that the work was not completed and no bills were issued. These receipts were not made part of the turnover. But there is no denial to the fact that part work was complete hence it should have been shown as work in progress. In view of this fact, ld. CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the addition of ₹ 5,78,500/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is an appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-3, Jaipur dated 14/05/2015 for the A.Y. 2009-10, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the objections raised towards validity of relevant assessment order passed U/s 147/147(3) of IT Act 1961 and in upholding the same. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 5,78,500/- towards increase in valuation of work in progress closing stock. 3. Under the facts circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in confirming the addition of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 343 (Raj). 4. On the other hand, the ld DR has submitted that in assessee s case, the facts were completely at variance from the facts of the case on which the ld AR has relied upon. She also submitted that the addition of ₹ 5,78,500/- was made on the basis of discrepancy noted in the Form 26AS and receipt declared in the books of account. Further she also submitted that sufficiency and accuracy of the reasons recorded are not necessity at the time of reopening of the assessment. Prima facie, the Assessing Officer was having sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. She pleaded to sustain the reopening proceedings being legal and valid. 5. I have heard both the sides on this issue. I have also pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore such receipt was not part of the turnover. On the other hand the AO s case was that though the work was not completed in toto in respect of amount of ₹ 1750000 but the fact was that even in respect of partly completed work the assessee should have shown such work as work in progress to be part of the closing stock. Accordingly, the AO estimated the work in progress out of such receipts at ₹ 10 lakhs and as the assessee has shown the closing stock of RS. 421500 therefore the difference of ₹ 578500 was added to be the part of the valuation of closing stock. The appellant s case is that when the AO has estimated profit by applying NP rate of 8% then no separate addition on account of closing stock can be made. On carefu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of the total receipt of ₹ 17,50,000/- not declared in P L account. These amounts should have been shown by the assessee in the work in progress, which shall form part of the closing stock. The income of the year shall increase by that amount. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby affirmed. Accordingly, ground No. 2 of the assessee s appeal stands dismissed. 8. Ground No. 3 of the appeal is against sustaining the addition of ₹ 13,95,070/- towards belated deposit of TDS U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. This is the amount, which the assessee has paid to three different persons, which is: (i) M/s Anjali Tubewell Co. ₹ 325490/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the AO for application of provisions of sec. 145(3) has already been rejected and trading addition has also been deleted. Therefore even such objection of the appellant cannot be accepted. The case laws relied upon by the appellant are also not found to be relevant to the facts of the appellant s case inasmuch as it is not a case of rejection of books of account. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is confirmed. 9. I have heard both the sides on this issue. It is not in dispute that the assessee has deducted TDS on the contractual payment of ₹ 13,95,070/- but the TDS was not deposited in time. The ld. AR relied on the various decisions wherein he has tried to establish that the TDS was on labour/job w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
