9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and deem it appropriate to restore the Revenue s instant second substantive ground back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh factual verification of the assessee s relevant details as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. This Revenue s appeal succeeds for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 1426/PUN/2019 CO No.12/PUN/2022 (Arising out of ITA No. 1426/Pun/2019) - - - Dated:- 26-8-2022 - SHRI S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND G. D. PADMAHSHALI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Assessee by : Shri S. N. Puranik ORDER Per S. S. Godara , JM This Revenue s appeal ITA No. 1426/Pun/2019 and assessee s Cross Objection CO No. 12/Pun/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016 declaring total income of Rs. 2,78,97,900/-. The survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried in the business premises of the appellant on 30/1/2015 during which documents pertaining to A.Y.2015-16 were impounded and the appellant had made a declaration of 1.52 Crores under different heads (unaccounted expenditure voucher Rs.1,28,56,490/- and bitumen stock Rs. 19,74,000/-). The appellant had executed various contracts during the year. One of the contract was pertaining to laying of 14 km road on NH9 between Pune-Solapur-Hyderabad from Km 244/000 to 258/000, based on the agreement No.B-2/C/01 for 2012-13, entered with National Highway Division, Solapur. The said work was allotted to the appellant vide work order No.B-2/C/01/ for 2012-13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uired to maintain the road with rectification if any in defect liability period. Only after the completion of the rectifications, the appellant was paid the amount and also claimed that an amount of Rs.1,10,40,000/- was spent on the defects during the F.Y. 2015-16. The appellant also claimed that the disclosure made during the survey was also pertaining to this RA Bill. The appellant filed a clarification letter issued by the Executive Engineer, NH- Division, Solapur dtd.25/12/2017 in which it was mentioned that the defects were brought to the notice of the contractor and the said defects were rectified in the F.Y. 2015-16. The AO rejected the claim of the appellant holding that the expenses which are debited in the F.Y. 2015-16 are on work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch 2016. 5.1 In the original submissions dtd.30/11/2018 made by the deceased AR, it was claimed that the appellant followed a consistent practice of recording the income only on actual receipt of consideration and accordingly the amount received on the Vth RA bill was shown as income in the A.Y. 2016-17. He relied on the Form No.26AS which shows the TDS deducted on the said amount for the proposition that the TDS could not have been claimed if the income is offered in A.Y.2015-16. In the said submission, it was claimed that no work in progress was shown against the above Vth RA bill. This aspect was clarified by the present AR. In the revised submission, the appellant claimed that the original AR had failed to notice that a closing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of the incomplete projects as seen from the P L account and balance sheet of A.Y.2015-16 where the work in progress had been reflected at Rs.20,82,00,000/- and similar work in progress amounts are also reflected for A.Y.2014-15 2016-17. Thus, the original claim made by the erstwhile AR is apparently not based on the facts available on record. It is also emerges that the appellant is booking the revenue only when the RA Bill are certified by the concerned authorities. The expenses incurred on uncertified RA Bills are being reflected as work in progress. The confusion of the erstwhile AR has lead to the addition of the work in progress on the ground that no such work in progress has been shown. The facts now brought on record cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l details before the CIT (A) regarding the impugned work-in-progress for the first time in lower appellate proceedings only. We appreciate learned counsel s fair statement and deem it appropriate to restore the Revenue s instant second substantive ground back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh factual verification of the assessee s relevant details as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. This Revenue s appeal in ITA No. 1426/Pun/2019 succeeds for statistical purposes. 5. The assessee s cross objection CO No. 12/Pun/2022 raises the sole issue of tax effect involved in Revenue s appeal which is not pressed during the course of hearing. Rejected accordingly. 6. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
