9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue filed this appeal on 03.06.2015 and Registry issued many notices to the assessee intimating the fixation of date of hearing by RPAD which are as follows: Sl. No. Date of notice Date of hearing Remarks i. 14.08.2017 25.09.2017 DR requested adjournment ii. 25.09.2017 20.11.2017 No proceedings iii. 20.11.2017 09.01.2018 None appeared on behalf of the assessee iv. 09.01.2018 27.02.2018 None appeared on behalf of the assessee v. 27.02.2018 25.04.2018 None appeared on behalf of the assessee vi. 25.04.2018 19.06.2018 No proceedings vii. 19.06.2018 25.09.2018 No proceedings. viii. 25.09.2018 22.11.2018 No proceedings. ix. 22.11.2018 07.01.2019 None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 3. The respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the issue in respect of SNC Power Corporation Pvt. Ltd. examined the audited balance sheet produced by the assessee and held that the breakup of the schedule L which is gross sales figures as on 31.03.2010 has clearly shown the figure of contract receipts from SNC Power Corporation Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 2,27,80,457/-. The CIT(A) further held that SNC Power Corporation Pvt. Ltd. did not deny the said receipt which was paid by making various adjustments such as TDS, security deposit, retention and other recovery etc. 6. In respect of understatement of two receipts of M/s BHEL, the CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer did not follow accounting policy and BHEL has paid Rs. 14,78,953/- which is reflected in the profit & loss account of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.04.2009 is of Rs. 66,13,857/- and the bills raised in the financial year 2009-10 is of Rs. 1,83,95,350/- and together this figure comes to Rs. 2,50,09,207/-. The A.O. has also given the figure of bills paid in the financial year 2009-10 at Rs. 1,51,50,000/- and the closing balance as on 31.03.2010 of Rs. 98,59,207/- which together comes to Rs. 2,50,09,207/. This figure of Rs. 2,50,09,207/- as per the A.O. should have been the contract receipt and ought to have been shown by the appellant in its P&L Account and since the appellant has shown contract receipt of Rs. 2,27,80,457/- , the A.O. arrived at the difference of Rs. 22,28,750/-. Thus in the case of M/s. SNC Power Corporation (P) Ltd. in Table -8 of the Assessment Order, the A.O. has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in order to arrive at the figure of Rs. 2,68,89,855/- which is again grossly faulty method of accounting by the A.O. The Appellant in his audited balance sheet in the break- up of Schedule' Lt which is gross sales figure as on 31.03.2010 has clearly shown the figure of contract receipts from M/s. SNC Power Corporation (P) Ltd. of Rs. 2,27,80,457/-. This 'figure has not been denied by M/s. SNC Power Corporation (P) Ltd. and after making various adjustments such as TDS, Security Deposit, retention, other recovery etc., out of this gross bill amounting to Rs. 2,27,80,457/-, the appellant was paid Rs. 1,83,95,350/-. This figure of Rs. 2,27,80,457/- is the gross bill raised by M/s. SNC Power Corporation (P) Ltd. and this amount is reflec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the understatement of contract receipt is definitely by a contrived method and because of the poor understanding of the A.O. of the mercantile system of accounts and cash system of accounts, the figures given in the Table - B reveals the unique hybrid method followed by the A.O. thereby mixing both the methods of accounting principle which is definitely not sustainable in the eyes of the law. In my considered opinion, there is absolute non-application of mind by the A.O. in deriving such figures. Thus considering all these aspects of the case, I am of the firm opinion that addition of Rs. 41,09,398/- in this case is not sustainable and accordingly the same is hereby deleted. 6.2 The A.O. has also derived the understatement of contract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. BHEL in the books of appellant also reflects this figure. The amount of Rs. 11,80,677/- is considered in the Assessment year2011- 12 and in that year Rs. 12,97,447/- has been paid to the appellant by M/s. BHEL which includes an amount of Rs. 11,80,627/-. The figure of Rs. 12,97,447/- is reflected in the details of the sales' of the appellant in the assessment year 2011-12 and is also reflected in the TDS Certificate in Form 26AS. Thus considering all these aspects of this transaction of the appellant with M/s BHEL, I am of the opinion that the addition of Rs. 10,43,637/- is not justified and not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 10,43,637/- is hereby deleted." 7. As discussed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
