9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing the percentage completion method. The view of the AO is a plausible view and merely because the PCIT holds a different view, then that of the AO this cannot be a ground to cancel the order of the AO being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. There is a difference between inadequate inquiries and lack of inquiry. In the present case sufficient and adequate enquiries were made by the AO. Merely because the AO had not written a detailed and elaborate order for accepting the submissions of the assessee, the same cannot be a ground to declare the order of the Assessing Officer as nonest. PCIT had only pointed out the alleged mismatch between the payment accounted for and TDS deducted. The above-said mismatch had been duly explained by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as well as in the revision proceedings, as the said payment (difference) was reflected in the subsequent year. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the order of the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, the order passed by the learned PCIT u/s 263 of the Act being not in accordance with law is cancelled. Appeal filed by the assessee is all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uly examined by the Assessing Officer, hence, there the assessment order 0s not erroneous prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Or Ground No. 8: The appellant craves for leave to add to, delete from or amend the grounds of appeal . 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the construction and sale of flats in the venture by name, M/s. Balaji Eternal Bliss. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y 2016-17 on 30.09.2016 admitting total income at Rs.37,79,400/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 24.05.2018 accepting the income returned as per the return of income filed. 4. The PCIT examined the record and noted that the Assessing Officer considered the receipts admitted on the sale of plots which are less than the amount shown as per 26AS. On verification of detailed statement of flats sold by the assessee, the PCIT observed that an amount of Rs.44,66,429/- was shown as receipts from Sri Anto George EML Anto whereas the amount was shown at Rs.58,07,802/- as per 26AS statement. Similar defaults were observed in the cases of Sri Saptarshi Mohanti, Sri Aravinda Mohanty, Sr. V Padmanabhan, Ms. Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and further the difference in the reconciliation of the TDS was on account of the flats which was valuing less than Rs.50.00 lakhs. It was further submitted that the assessee has accounted for the payment received by it for the subsequent A.Y or in previous A.Y. It was submitted that once the issue has been examined by the Assessing Officer, it is not open for the learned PCIT to impose upon the assessee his point view. It was submitted that when two methods of accounting i.e. project completion and percentage completion methods are permissible and the assessee had opted for percentage completion method and debited the payment received by it from the prospective flat owners in the respective A.Ys, then it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind. It was further submitted that the learned PCIT had not given any finding as to how the order passed by the Assessing Officer has become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee at Para 7 had mentioned the name of 5 persons, which according to the learned PCIT were not matching with payment received during the year under consideration and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... creasing in closing stock. As regards Sale consideration of property in ITR is less than sale consideration reported in Form 26QB, the assessee submitted that The activity of the firm is construction of residential flats, the income is offered under the head Income from Business, and we are not having any income which will fall under Income from Capital Gains. Wherever the cost of flat. sold is more than the Rs.50 lakhs, customers are deducting 1% TDS and depositing the same, as our activity is falling under Income from Business, we are offering income under that head and claiming the TDS amount towards our tax liability... As the firm is identifying turnover under percentage more completion method and TDS is deducted by the purchaser only on the flats costing than 50 akhs. hence the turnover declared in the books of accounts and the amounts reflecting in Form No. 26 AS will not match. We submit that the turnover declared and advances received are more than the figures mentioned in Form 26 AS We are enclosing herewith ledger accounts of flats sold for the financial year 2013-14 2014-15 and 2015-16. The submissions of the assessee have been verified and the return of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompletion method. In our view, the view of the Assessing Officer is a plausible view and merely because the learned PCIT holds a different view, then that of the Assessing Officer, this cannot be a ground to cancel the order of the Assessing Officer being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. There is a difference between inadequate inquiries and lack of inquiry. In the present case sufficient and adequate enquiries were made by the Assessing Officer. Merely because the Assessing Officer had not written a detailed and elaborate order for accepting the submissions of the assessee, the same cannot be a ground to declare the order of the Assessing Officer as nonest. 14. Further, the learned PCIT had only pointed out the alleged mismatch between the payment accounted for and TDS deducted. The above-said mismatch had been duly explained by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as well as in the revision proceedings, as the said payment (difference) was reflected in the subsequent year. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the order of the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, the order passed by the learned PCIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
