TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf offered the amount of claim of Manglad Flash Flood in the assessment year 2011-12, when the claim attained finality and thus, no prejudice was caused to the revenue. In the case of CIT Vs. Greenworld Corporation [2009 (5) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that an order of Assessment passed by an ITO should not be interfered with only because another view is possible. Similarly in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Limited 2007 (11) TMI 12 - Supreme Court of India & Malbar Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court ) the Supreme Court has laid down the principle that when the Assessing Officer taken one of the two views permissible in law and which the Commissioner does not agree with and which results in a loss of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue ignoring the fact that the income so excluded in AY 2010-11 is offered to tax in AY 2011-12. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT has erred in nothing that the disputed amount should have been provided in the books of accounts which in fact it was as noted by the Learned CIT himself at Para 3 of his order 2. The common issue raised in all the grounds of appeal is against proceedings u/s263 of the IT Act on the ground that AO had not obtained any details regarding the exclusion of Manglad Flash Flood Claim amounting to ₹ 13,45,47,750/- and therefore, the order made by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrent year s income. The ld. Counsel further submitted that this was clearly mentioned in the statement of total income filed along with the return of income and also mentioned by way of notes to accounts(note no 4) to the annual accounts of the assessee copies of which were now filed at page no.01 and page no.09 of the paper book respectively. The ld. Counsel vide letter dated 06-02-2015 replied the show cause notice by the CIT during proceedings u/s.263 of the IT Act by submitting that the claim of ₹ 13,45,47,750/- towards Manglad Flash Flood, was booked in the AY 2010-11 but the same was disputed by the client. He also argued that during the year under consideration , the Work in Progress represents the amounts claimed by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the income from his client qua the claim and therefore, there was no loss of revenue to the Income Tax Department as what was excluded in the AY 2010-11 was offered to tax in AY 2011-12 by relying on the decision in the case of CIT vs. G.R. THANGAMALIGAI passed by the Hon ble Madras High Court wherein it has been upheld that where there is no loss of revenue, interference u/s 263 is not justified. The ld. DR on the other hand relied heavily on the order of the CIT and further submitted that u/s 263 was rightly invoked as the AO failed to obtain all the details regarding Manglad Flash Flood Claim and also that the AO nowhere discussed in the assessment order, the issue of said claim. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... project period due to loss of machinery, equipment and materials that were necessary for carrying out the construction activity. The assessee had to take advance from his clients in order to carry out such work which was not recovered in subsequent years by the client. The dispute arose between the assessee and his client regarding charging interest on the said advance which was deducted the payment made to assessee for the work done. Whereas, on the other hand, the assessee maintained that no interest was chargeable on the adhoc advance made. The matter was taken to the Dispute Revenue Board, wherein it was decided that the rate of interest charged by the client was excessive and it should be @ 10%, being the rate of interest specified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was caused to the revenue. In the case E.D. Sasson Co. (26 ITR 27) the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that income can be said to accrue or arise when a debt comes into existence in favour of the assessee but the assessee must have also acquired the right to receive the payment. The real test of income is whether or not the assessee has an unfettered right to receive the same. However, in the present case M/s. SJVN Ltd. filed a case in the Delhi High Court against the arbitral award which shows that the assesse does not have an unfettered right to receive the claim. In the case of Shoorji Vallabhdas Co (46 ITR 144) the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that if income does not result at all there cannot be a tax, though in the books of accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
