TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty to approach the appropriate authority in this regard for doing the needful in the matter. – Decided against Assessee. - IT(SS)A No. 606/Ahd/2012 - - - Dated:- 14-8-2014 - Shri Mukul Kr. Shrawat And Shri N. S. Saini,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Vimalendra Verma, DR For the Respondent : Shri M.K. Patel, AR ORDER Per Shri N. S. Saini, Accountant Member: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Ahmedabad dated 23.10.2012. 2. Ground nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal read as under: 1. The order of assessment is contrary to the facts of the case and prejudicial to the assessee. 2. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee was required to submit the explanation for the same. The assessee submitted that during the Financial Year 2008-09, Shri Iqbal A. Shaikh, proprietor of R A Shaikh Constructions had constructed industrial building for APS Packaging, Silvassa. In page 66, an employee of R A Shaikh Constructions has noted some major expenses for the construction of the said building. He had also written on left bottom side of page no. 66 approximate profit of the same as ₹ 81,50,910/-. It was submitted that the hand written figures were only an estimate and not the correct profit during the Financial Year 2008-09. It was further submitted that the assessee had earned only profit of ₹ 38.92 lakhs from the above project which was shown in the retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that from the perusal of the contents of the loose paper no. 66 of Annexure BF 1/1 and the explanation of the assessee, it is clear that the assessee had constructed an industrial building for APS Packaging, Silvassa during the Financial Year 2008-09. Total bills raised by the assessee were ₹ 3,45,85,491/- and expenditure of ₹ 2,64,34,581/- were incurred. This resulted in profit of ₹ 81,50,910/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further observed that further expenses of ₹ 8,22,764/- were to be reduced from the profit. So the profit earned for the construction of industrial building for APS Packaging comes to ₹ 73,28,146/-. Out of this profit, the profit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d during the Assessment Year 2009-10 as worked out on the basis of appellant s own loose paper seized as page no. 66 of Annexure BF 1/1. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition of ₹ 35 lakhs. 8. At the time of hearing, the Authorized Representative of the assessee filed before us a copy of computation of income for Assessment Year 2010-11 and pointed out therefrom that the assessee has included ₹ 35 lakhs as its income for Assessment Year 2010-11. Further, the assessee also filed copy of the assessment order for Assessment Year 2010-11 showing that the income assessed by the Assessing Officer was at ₹ 74,56,857/- which was the income shown by the assessee in its return of income for Assessment Year 2010-11 after includin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee as the assessee himself admitted that it was following mercantile system of accounting. According to the Assessing Officer, as the entire profit of ₹ 81,50,910/- on construction of industrial building for APS Packaging, Silvassa was earned during the Assessment Year 2009-10, therefore the entire amount was taxable in this year and made addition of ₹ 35 lakhs. 11. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that admittedly the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting and therefore, the income of ₹ 35 lakhs was to be taxed in Assessment Year 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... balance amount of ₹ 35 lakhs as income of the assessee for the year under consideration. We are in agreement with the contention of the assessee that if ₹ 35 lakhs is taxed during the year consideration, then it would amount to double taxation as the assessee has shown the very same income in subsequent Assessment Year 2010-11, which has been accordingly taxed. We hold that the assessee shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority in this regard for doing the needful in the matter. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 14th of August, 2014 at Ahmedabad. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
