Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (9) TMI 1097

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... while payment was made before 31.03.2010, the disallowance cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we sustain ground nos. 2 5 partly in favour of the assessee. - Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice President And Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Vinay Bahl, Adv. For the Department : Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT( DR) ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The assessee has come in appeal against the order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as learned First Appellate Authority or in short FAA ), in Appeal no. CIT(A), Delhi-4/10399/2018-19 for the assessment year 2011-12, arising out of the order dated 29.12.2018, u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... infirmity in the order of the ed. CIT(A). The assessee has produced credible evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) that he had maintained regular books of accounts on mercantile basis for the accounting purpose, as is clear from the tax audit report submitted before CIT(A) which could not be controverted by the Ld. DR. From the above finding it is also clear that assessee has recorded the expenses / revenue on mercantile basis therefore the AO is not justified to make additions regarding creditors for expenses (63,97,422 + 4,11,324). Further we notice that the payment to accountant has been explained by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) that it is in the nature of salary and therefore, the payment of Rs. 81000 /- is under the limit for deducting .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eleted. 6. That the statement of facts shall be filed at the time of hearing. 7. That the appellant craves to add, amend, alter, withdraw any ground of appeal. 6. As we go through the impugned order of CIT)A) it comes up that in para 5.5 the CIT(A) has mentioned that it is a fit case for invoking section 145(3) of the Act and thus rejected the assessee s books of account. 6.1 Learned DR heavily relied that once books of account stand rejected then CIT(A) was justified to sustain the additions, which are challenged here. 6.2 In regard to the mobilization advance from Hoogly Holdings amounting to Rs. 28,17,320/-, the claim of assessee was as follows; 14. That similarly for the assessment year 2010-11, the appellant enclosed a chart of TDS as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e bills and thus the same is revenue receipts received in advance. The appellant, by following mixed system of accounting, has neither offered advance contract receipts of Rs. 28,17,320/- in the relevant AY nor in the subsequent year as the appellant was offering contract receipts in the year of receipt. Here, I am of the view that the advance contract receipts of Rs. 28,17,320/- has not only accrued in the relevant AY as per the terms and conditions of the contract but also received in the relevant AY. Therefore, the advance contract receipts of Rs. 28,17,320/- taxed in the relevant AY by the AO is sustained holding the year of receipt as the year of accrual in view of above finding. Since this sum is not offered for tax in the subsequent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... FY 2009-10. Only the goods have been received by the appellant on the site on 1.04 * 0.201 which is of no consequence to the assessment proceedings. The delay is only on account of transportation, as the heavy vehicles are not allowed within the city limits in the day time. 8.1 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, submission of the appellant and perused material on the record. Admittedly, the iron of Rs. 4,78,818/- bought on 31.03.2010 was not in physical possession of the appellant for consumption on or before as on 31.03.2010. Therefore, irrespective of method of accounting followed by the appellant; the same is bound to be reflected in the closing stock which has not been done by the appellant. Therefore, I find merit in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates