9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd made addition in the income declared by the assessee - appeal allowed in part. - ITA No.920/Ahd/2015 /Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 - - - Dated:- 3-4-2017 - ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A)-II, Surat dated 28.1.2015 passed for the Asstt.Year 2011-12. 2. Sole substantial grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,71,40,163/- to the total income of the assessee. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. At the time relevant time, she was engaged in civil construction consultancy business on job work basis in the name and style of M/s.Aapil Planning Consultancy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der : With reference to the above mentioned subject and with reference to our booking of income not matching with 26AS, we herewith clarify that assessee had ongoing contract with Nanded Waghela Municipal Corporation, Nanded. Work was not quantified by Corporation within reasonable time. Payments were given and as per Corporation's working. Copies of letter received Nanded. Waghela Municipal Corporation, Nanded are attached herewith to support the fact of existence of dispute. Due to ongoing controversey, the assessee had to book 76 as and when cheque was received. That was the only available recourse to the assessee to determine her approved. It can be seen from 26AS that Nanded Waghela Municipal Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant financial year itself. The appellants contention that the receipts of ₹ 1,71,40,163/- is accounted in FY 2011-12 is not acceptable. However, it does not prejudice the legal rights of the appellant to make appropriate application before the AO as per the provisions of the Act, and the AO will decide accordingly as per law. The addition made by the AO is upheld and the ground of appeal is dismissed. 7. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset contended that these receipts have been accounted for by the assessee in the next year, when the municipality has given her cheque and confirmed the payments. The assessee has also received these receipts in next year. Alternatively, he contended that the gross receipts c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urred expenditure. Therefore, he at the most can consider the income at the rate of 1.96% of the turnover remained to be accounted. In other words, the additions is confirmed to the extent of 1.96% of different i.e. ₹ 1,71,40,163/-. The ld.AO shall calculate the amount and made addition in the income declared by the assessee. It is also observed that since this amount has already suffered tax in the next assessment year, the assessee will be at liberty to approach the AO for exclusion of that amount from taxation in the next year, because that will tax the assessee twice on the same receipts. In view of the discussion above, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
