9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008, determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 70. 30 lakhs. 2. There is a delay of 28 days in filing the appeal. In his affidavit, the Director of the company has stated that due to illness of the accountant the tax consultant could not be contacted to file the second appeal, that the delay in filing the appeal was beyond the control of the assessee. During the course of hearing before us, the Authorised Representative(AR)reiterated the same arguments that are part of the affidavit and the application filed by the assessee for condoning the delay. Considering the circumstances and facts of the case and the period of delay, we are of the opinion that delay should be condoned. 3. Effective ground of appeal deals with addition of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NLL, that in the second statement the assessee had shown receipt of Rs. 5, 00, 54, 848/-as against the receipt of Rs. 4. 78 crores in the first the statement, that in the case of HAJ there was difference of Rs. 8. 72 lakhs, that the assessee had submitted the reconciliations without any supporting documents. Finally, he held that there was variation in labour charges of Rs. 33. 82 lakhs. He added the said sum to the total income the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Before him, it was argued that the assessee had completed one of the ongoing project before March, 2005 and had submitted the bill, that the bill was accounted by it in its books of accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that during the assessment proceedings, the AO had observed that the assessee was in receipt of labour charges of Rs. 9. 35 crores for the year under consideration and had offered Rs. 9. 29 crores only for taxation, that the assessee filed reconciliation in that regard, that he directed the assessee to file further reconciliation of the receipts in the cases of NLL and HAJ(Rs. 4. 78 crores and Rs. 2. 47 crores, respectively), that the AO concluded that there was difference in the receipt to the extent of Rs. 33. 82 lakhs, that the assessee had argued before the FAA that the AO had wrongly considered the labour-charges-TDS certificates, that service tax, VAT were considered as income while calculating labour-charges receipts, that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
