9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessing officer were deleted by ld CIT(A). We do not find any error in the conclusion reached by ld CIT(A). That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid additions. His order on this addition is, therefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. - ITA No.24/SRT/2020 - - - Dated:- 6-10-2022 - Shri Pawan Singh, JM And Dr. A.L.Saini, AM For the Assessee : Shri Kiran K Shah, C.A For the Respondent : Shri Vinod Kumar Sr.DR ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2013- 14, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abour. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) credited of Rs.10,31,551/- with the return of income. On verification of the TDS certificates, it was noted by AO that total contract receipts as per TDS certificates are Rs.5,35,77,554/-. However in the profit and loss account, the total contract receipts from the two parties namely M/s Anjani Developers and M/s Lap Developers (P) Ltd, shown received at Rs.4,57,79,940/- and Rs.1,45,00,000/- respectively. The details are given below: S.No. Name of the party Amount 1 M/s Anjani Developers Rs.3,90,77,554/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e audit report of the assessee for the financial year 2012-13 relevant to the AY.2013-14, it is clearly mentioned that there is no change in method of accounting. Therefore, as per the submission made by the assessee, it is maintaining accounts on mercantile basis and is therefore liable to be taxed on the income accrued or generated during the year. Therefore, AO held that since the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting, it is assessee s duty to declare all credits as per mercantile system from the details filed by the assessee, it was observed by AO that there is a negative difference of Rs.77,97,614/- for the A.Y 2013-14. Hence, it is very much require to bring the difference amount to tax during the year under considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O proceeded to make the addition on the ground that the assessee following mercantile system of accounting, the said receipts as per form 26AS should have been declared. The assessee submitted during the appellate proceedings that the discrepancies arose due to TDS on incorrect amount by the party M/s Anjali Developers for whom contract work was executed for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 (current A.Y.). The assessee has shown from the copy of form 26AS for A.Y. 2012-13 and A.Y. 2013-14 that the party M/s Anjali Developers (contractee) had deducted tax on actual payments of Rs.2,46,47,940/-. In A.Y. 2012-13 and Rs. l,25,00,000/- in A.Y.2013-14, as against actual contract work of Rs.3,38,77,499/- in A.Y.2012-13 and Rs.78,67,072/- in A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the assessment order, the AO noted that there was difference in contract receipts as per form 26AS for M/s Lap Developers and the amount shown by the assessee in its P L A/c amounting to Rs.11,64,686/-. The AO did not accept the assessee's reply during assessment proceedings and added the same amount as undisclosed receipts. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee has shown from the documentary evidence that the Contractee, M/s. Lap Developers had incorrectly deducted TDS on amounts pertaining to service tax and VAT of Rs.11,64,686/- also. Thus, it was claimed that the contract receipts of Rs.3,79,12,686/- from M/s Lap, Developers was rightly shown in P L A/c as against form 26AS figure of Rs.3,90,77,554/-. Thus, ld CIT(A) afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
