Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 135 - AT - Income TaxAddition of depreciation - assessee has not filed any appeal against the order passed u/s 143(1) as well as against the assessment framed u/s 143(3) and thus the right of the assessee got forfeited - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the AO to rectify the mistake which has resulted from denial of depreciation to the assessee. We also note that the AO while passing the original assessment as well as assessment in the set aside proceedings has taken wrong figure of total income declared as per return of income filed on 25.09.2010 i.e. ₹ 18,51,900/- as against the correct figure of ₹ 3,96,310/-. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT and accordingly same is hereby upheld by dismissing ground no. 1 of the revenue’s appeal. Unexplained revenue receipts - assessee has introduced cash out of undisclosed source of income in the guise of business income - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:-We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has duly considered all the facts on record including correspondences from various parties who have made payments to the assessee on account of works carried out during the year. In the case of HCC Ltd., the said company has given contradictory replies which cannot be treated as reliable. Ld. CIT(A) also noted that the payment has been received from HCC Ltd. By referring to the payment memo of HCC Ltd. which demonstrates the payment by HCC in excess payment than reported by HCC Ltd. In response to reply filed to notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. Therefore, the revenue reported by the assessee cannot be treated as unexplained revenue on the basis incorrect and contradictory evidences filed by HCC Ltd. CIT(A) noted that the assessee has accounted for the revenue which inter alia included security deposit also. Similarly the assessee has received payments which have been duly accounted for and a finding of facts has been given by the ld CIT(A) to thus effect. Besides the assessee has reported a receipts as revenue arising from small works contracts which were not liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194C of the Act and therefore not reportable in form 26AS. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that there is no cash deposits in the bank account and, therefore, no adverse information can be drawn - CIT-A estimated the profit @ 8% on small contracts of ₹ 15,96,701/- as suppression of profit cannot be ruled out and thus sustained the addition to the tune of ₹ 1,27,736/-. Taking all these facts into consideration in totality, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) - Decided against revenue. Undisclosed bills receivable during the year - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by giving a finding of facts that that ₹ 1,22,73,108/- as calculated by the AO is in fact is part of opening debtors which have also considered while framing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 and there is no closing debtors for the current years. The Ld. CIT(A) also referred to the replies received from various parties namely HCC, Coal Mines and OCC Ltd. and recorded a finding that all these balances were already considered in the opening debtors which have also been duly shown in the books of accounts of the assessee. We find that the AO has factually committed a mistake as making the addition on account of receivables which have in fact been recorded by the assessee in his books of accounts in A.Y. 2009-10. We also not that the ld CIT(A) has recorded a finding to this effect while allowing the appeal of the assessee on this ground. Decided against revenue.
|