9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has already been taxed in the hands of the assessee consequent to the order of the Tribunal it cannot be once again taxed in the hands of the assessee during the A.Y. 2011-12 where the sales have been accounted by the assessee in the books of accounts. We therefore find no merit in the argument of the Ld.DR thereby setting aside the orders of the Revenue Authorities and accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee is allowed. - Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon ble Judicial Member And Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon ble Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR For the Respondent : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.AR ORDER PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,36,80,000/- has been added to the income during the A.Y. 2010-11 it cannot be once again added to the income during the A.Y. 2011-12. However, Assessing Officer vide his order dated 28.05.2018 rejected the plea of the assessee and dismissed the petition filed under section 154 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. Considering the submissions made by the Ld. Ld.AR, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following revised grounds: - 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of the assessee. However, Ld. Assessing Officer based on the confirmation received by M/s. Raj Impex which has accounted as purchases during the A.Y. 2010-11, has concluded that there is no existing liability, whereby considering that the assessee has suppressed sales to the extent of Rs. 1,36,80,000/- during the A.Y. 2010-11. Ld.AR further pleaded that, assessee has accounted for the sales in the A.Y. 2011-12 subject to certain export clearances. However, in the interim, the Ld. Tribunal has passed an order upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer during the A.Y. 2010-11 considering it as suppression of sales / stock in the books of accounts of the assessee. He therefore, pleaded that since the sales has been accounted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al income of the assessee during the A.Y. 2010-11 by virtue of the order of the Tribunal dated 30.08.2017 and the Ld.Assessing Officer has also passed consequential order dated 12.06.2018 by adding Rs. 1,36,80,000/- to the total income of the assessee. The issue available based on the facts is with respect to the accounting of sales by the assessee in the year A.Y. 2011-12 whereas the Revenue has stated that the income in the A.Y. 2010-11 is based on the confirmation by the vendor M/s. Raj Impex. It is trite law that the same income cannot be taxed twice in the hands of the assessee in two different assessment years. Since the income has already been taxed in the hands of the assessee consequent to the order of the Tribunal it cannot be onc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
