9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 26.03.2014 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. The assessee had filed written submissions in respect of grounds raised in revenue appeal. The registry had already served the notice of hearing to the assessee and accordingly we proceed to dispose of this appeal on hearing the ld DR and by taking into account the written submissions of the assessee that is already on record. 3. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the addition towards difference in contractual receipt reported in the return with that reflected in Form 26AS, in the facts and circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contained in the assessment folder does confirm the contract receipt from L&T and Tarapur Company as above. It was explained that L&T construction by mistake had made excess provision of contract receipt in Form 26AS of about Rs. 28,47,30,353/- and the ld AO did consider the mistake and reduced the mismatch for the purpose of addition of Rs. 2,39,93,101/-. In the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted further copy of Form 26AS evidencing contract receipts from L&T and Tarapur & Co as under:- Sl No. Particulars Gross Amount 3 L&T Rs. 39,09,94,779/- 4 L&T Rs. 98,422/- 5 Tarapur & Co Rs. 3,14,97,822/- Rs. 42,25,91,023/- 3.3. The copy of Form 26AS updated till 22.5.2015 and produced in the cours ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... changes. It is not in dispute that L&T had carried out rectifications in the account of the assessee and had accordingly updated its TDS returns which consequently had resulted in lesser contract receipts in the updated Form 26AS. The reliance placed on the updated Form 26AS by the assessee and filed before the ld CITA cannot be considered as an additional evidence filed before ld CITA as it is the document within the domain of the income tax department. Moreover, the ld CITA had only directed the ld AO to verify the said transactions with updated Form 26AS, which in our considered opinion, is fair and reasonable. The revenue cannot ask for any more opportunity than this. The interest of the revenue had been properly taken care by the ld C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deciding that receipt of Rs. 7,88,104/- was in the nature of contractual receipt and not a rental income. 4.2. We have heard the ld DR. We find that the assessee had actually shown the machinery hire charges from L&T Ltd in the sum of Rs. 7,88,104/- and included the same in the gross contract receipts and hence there is no scope of making any separate addition towards the same as rental income. This has been rightly considered by the ld CITA and accordingly we do not find any infirmity in his order. Accordingly, the ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 5. The last ground to be decided in this appeal of the revenue is as to whether the ld CITA was justifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. The assessee had not filed any written submissions in respect of grounds raised in his cross objections. As stated earlier, the assessee was not present at the time of hearing before us despite the fact of service of notice. We find that the ld CITA with regard to disallowance of wages of Rs. 1,67,394/- had observed that the ld AO treated the expenditure of January 2011 on wages account for TISCO site at Jamshedpur as expenditure not recorded in the books of account. The assessee had claimed that the muster roll does show wages of 59 workers of TISCO site and wages register may have omission in respect of this one site for January wages. It was claimed that payments are always made from one source i.e receipt from main contractor L&T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. With regard to the other claim of the assessee that the amounts were duly paid before the end of the previous year and accordingly, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would be applicable only for amounts payable at the end of the year is concerned, we find that the said issue is now settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam Gas Service vs CIT reported in 394 ITR 300 (SC) wherein it was held that section 40(a)(ia) covers even the amounts paid before the end of the previous year. Hence respectfully following the said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we hold that the disallowance has been rightly confirmed by the ld CITA. Accordingly, the Ground No.1 of assessee's cross ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
