9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -14 requires verification. We are restoring this issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication and the assessee is directed to provide all necessary evidences to prove that income of ₹ 18,46,865/- reflected by Alstom T D in TDS return filed for current year is the same amount which was paid by Alstom T D to assessee in preceding year and the same income was duly included by assessee in return of income filed with the department for ay: 2014-15 and dues taxes paid to Revenue . Expenses reimbursement - Again, the onus is on the assessee to prove that these are merely expenses reimbursements received from Alstom T D/Areva T D. Thus, this contention of the assessee that the said amounts are merely reimbursements of expenses requires verification . We are restoring this issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication and the assessee is directed to provide all necessary evidences to prove that payment as is reflected by Alstom T D in TDS return filed for current year are the expenses reimbursements and the same were included by assessee in return of income filed with the department for ay: 2015-16 and dues taxes paid to Revenue. Remaining amount uploaded by Alst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout appreciating the facts of the case. 2. Because the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in making addition of ₹ 2073875/-, which has already been subjected to tax in earlier year, without making any verification of the facts of the case. 3. Because the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in making addition of ₹ 433200/-, which has already been subjected to tax in the same year, without making any verification of the facts of the case. 4. Because the authorities below have erred in making addition to the income of ₹ 1285663/- in total disregards to the fact that this amount appearing in 26 AS was neither received by the appellant nor it belonged to him. 5. Because the appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction contracts and total contractual receipts during the year under consideration were to the tune of ₹ 10,52,19,266/-. The solitary issue in this appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal is with respect to mismatch of income as show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO. The ld. CIT(A) accepted this contention of the assessee and the additions to the income were sustained to the tune of ₹ 37,92,738/- by ld. CIT(A). It was observed by ld. CIT(A) in its appellate order dated 06.03.2019 that the only contention of the assessee with respect to differential amount of ₹ 26,08,074.36 was that the assessee has considered this amount in its books of accounts for the financial year 2013-14 as the said amount was stated to be received in financial year 2013-14. The ld. CIT(A) was of the view that this amount received as an advance was wrongly reflected as income in the year in which it was received on cash basis of accounting. The ld. CIT(A) was of the view that this is not permissible as per law or by principles of accounting standards. The ld. CIT(A) was also of the view that the assessee did not objected to the action of Vendor Alstom T D in reflecting the said income in the TDS returns of current year under consideration . Thus, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee with respect to differential amount of ₹ 12,85,663/- between the amount reflected as contractual receipt from Alstom T D in assessee s books of accounts and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28-29 of the paper book and it was submitted that it reflects ledger account of contract receipts from Alstom T D for financial year 2013-14 and 2014-15. Our attention was drawn to an entry dated 5.3.2014 in ledger account for financial year 2013-14 to show that it reflect an contract receipt of ₹ 11,73,409.32 received from Alstom T D which is included in books of accounts. Similarly, it was stated by ld. Counsel for the assessee that similarly an amount of ₹ 7,01,763/- as reflected in the difference reconciliation statement was reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee for financial year 2013-14 and due taxes paid on it for that year. It was submitted that this payment of ₹ 7,01,763/- was made by Areva T D which was later taken over by Alstom T D. The assessee counsel submitted that corresponding ledger accounts to prove that this amount is included in books of accounts of the assessee for financial year 2013-14 are not enclosed. With respect to entries of ₹ 4,33,200/- and ₹ 2,27,010/- reflected in said difference reconciliation, it was submitted that these are on account of various expenses reimbursements. It was also claimed that part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid contractual receipts from civil construction business are from Alstom T D which also included contractual receipts from Areva T D which is stated to have been taken over by Alstom T D. It is undisputed that the assessee has dealing with the Alstom T D as well with Areva T D , during the year under consideration and hence primary onus is on the assessee to prove that the correct amount of income as was earned from these parties are offered for taxation to Revenue and due taxes paid to Revenue. Thus, it is not a case where the tax-payer is claiming that the amount as is reflected in Form No. 26AS is from parties with which the tax-payers has no dealings at all and hence the tax-payer cannot be asked to prove impossible. The assessee has explained that differential of ₹ 18,46,865/- ( ₹ 11,45,102 + 701763/- -paper book /page 38 ) were received by assesse from Alstom T D and Areva T D in preceding previous year viz. 2013-14(ay:2014-15) and was offered for taxation in that previous year(viz. ay:2014-15) and due taxes paid to Revenue, and it is further stated by assessee that Alstom T D /Areva T D have erroneously uploaded the income in the current year TDS returns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect to the remaining amount of ₹ 12,85,663/- uploaded by Alstom T D in its TDS return for current year as income of the assessee, but the assessee has denied that the assessee did not have any such dealings with Alstom T D and no such income was earned by assessee but rather it was erroneously uploaded by said company Alstom T D in TDS returns filed for current year. The assessee has also produced copies of emails which are placed in paper book to reflect that the assessee has requested Alstom T D to correct this error. The said emails are placed in paper book filed by assessee with tribunal at page 75-78. The assessee has claimed that the said concern is not responding to the assessee s request to correct TDS returns to remove said amount as to the credit of the assessee and to credit to the correct payee , mainly due to change in their management as new management has taken over. It is equally true that the assessee has dealing with said concern Alstom T D/Areva T D and primary onus is on the assessee to prove that the income as is reflected in Form No. 26AS to its credit does not belong to it. Keeping in view entire factual matrix under consideration, we are restoring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
