9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on account of bills which he had demonstrated, were accepted by the CONCORD Biotech Ltd. in the subsequent year. This, income accrued to the assessee in the subsequent year only when the bills were passed and accepted by the CONCORD Biotech Ltd.. With regard to these bills, therefore, the assessee had rightly booked the amounts in the subsequent year, and no addition was called for to be made to the income of the assessee in respect of these bills in the impugned year. As for remaining amounts relating both the Apple Wood Estate Ltd. and CONCORD Biotech Ltd. which the assessee had explained that it had booked this amount in its WIP and not as sales of the year,we find that it had substantiated its explanation by producing copy of its ledger account reflecting the same. We see no reason to reject this explanation of the assessee. Nothing has been pointed out by the Revenue as to why the assessee was wrong in booking these amounts, as its WIP. In view of the same, the addition on account of this difference pertaining to Apple Wood Estate Ltd. and CONCORD Biotech Ltd. is also not sustainable. In any case had reflected sales from these parties from Apple Wood Estate Ltd. and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for the delay in filing the appeal before us. Considering the same and also noting the small period of delay, we condone the same. Order was pronounced during the course of hearing and the appeal proceeded to be heard with thereafter. 5. Grounds raised by the assessee in appeal are as follow: 1.1 The order passed u/s.250 on 23.11.2017 for A.Y.2014-15 by CIT(A)- 3, Abad, confirming the addition of Rs.25,24,873/- towards alleged short receipts is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the explanations furnished and the evidence produced by the appellant. 2.1 The Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the difference of Rs.25,24,873/- between the receipts as per books and form No.26AS as revenue receipt liable to tax in this year. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Id.CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the difference of Rfe.25,24,873/- between the receipts as per books and form No.26AS as revenue receipt liable to tax in this year. 3.1 Without prejudice to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was on account of the fact that the bills raised by the assessee were sent to the other party who only after going through various items, for which bill was raised and after noting, whether the work was satisfactorily completed and measuring everything and finding everything to be okay would pass the bill , which would not be necessarily for the same amount, as that for which it was raised, and as a consequence, though the work was completed in the impugned year and bill was also raised by the assessee in the impugned year, since the other party had accepted the bill in the subsequent year, the assessee had booked this bill in subsequent year. The ld.counsel for the assessee pointed out that with respect to both the parties necessary evidence to substantiate the explanation was also filed as under: i. in the case of Apple Wood Estate Ltd. he pointed out that copy of subsidiary ledger account of parties in the books of the assessee, booking the said amount as WIP was placed before the Revenue authorities, and it was placed before us also at PB page no.6 to 7; ii. in respect of CONCORD Biotech Ltd. it was pointed out that copy of account of CONCORD Biotech Ltd. in the books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Concord Biotech Ltd of Rs.21,93,645/- the appellant submitted that there are receipts as per Form no. 26AS of Rs. 1,41,12,536/-- whereas it was Rs.1,19,18,891/- as per books. It was submitted that the payment certificate was not finalized due to some disputes regarding quantum of work completed by the agent and some portion has been accounted in WIP. The appellant submitted that the amount which has not been accounted as work in progress, has been accounted for that differential receipts as income in A.Y. 2016-16 as evident the ledger account for F.Y.2014-15 wherein the entries on 05,06.2014 and 01,07.2014 pertaining to RA Bill No. 1-6-8. The appellant submitted copy of return for A.Y.2015-16 and detailed ledger account copy of Concord Biotech Ltd. in his books of accounts. The perusal of the same indicates clearly the date wise accounting of the concerned receipt asunder: Date Amount (Rs.) 05.06.2014 10,15,355/- 05,06.2014 1,93,720/- 01.07.2014 49,021/- 01.07.2017 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of accounting, and the job was completed and bill raised by the assessee, the corresponding sales should have been booked in the impugned year only. We do not find any merit in this logic of the ld.CIT(A). Even as per the accrual system of accounting, the income is said to have been accrued only when the other party accepts its liability with respect to the bills raised on it. Until then no income is said to be accrued. Even going by the logic of the ld.CIT(A) we find that the assessee had rightly booked income on account of bills which he had demonstrated, were accepted by the CONCORD Biotech Ltd. in the subsequent year. This, income accrued to the assessee in the subsequent year only when the bills were passed and accepted by the CONCORD Biotech Ltd.. With regard to these bills, therefore, the assessee had rightly booked the amounts in the subsequent year, and no addition was called for to be made to the income of the assessee in respect of these bills in the impugned year. As for remaining amounts relating both the Apple Wood Estate Ltd. and CONCORD Biotech Ltd. of Rs.3,31,228/- Rs.10,15,775/- , respectively, which the assessee had explained that it had booked this amount in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
