TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ures Limited deducted tax on the total amount as required to be paid to the Assessee and a letter of confirmation was filed before the AO as issued by the Simplex Infrastructures Ltd, deductor, along with the evidences of payments mentioning the cheque no’s and dates of payments of impugned of ₹ 3,70,244/- and thereby, we agree with the submissions of the Ld.AR that the tax was offered on the total value of contract work and we find force in the arguments of the Assessee that income once taxed can not be taxed again, we hold that the impugned addition was part of gross receipt and as shown income in the profit and loss account, thus, it can not become an addition again bringing the same for taxation for not following the principles of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st which the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT-A, which was dismissed vide order dated 15-09-2009. The assessee preferred second appeal before the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal directed the AO to re-decide the issue taking into consideration the additional evidences as filed by the assessee vide its order dated 01-12- 2010 passed in ITA No. 2112/Kol/09. 4. As matter stood thus, the case of the assessee was transferred to ITO, Ward 50(4), Kolkata from Durgapur. The AO exercising jurisdiction under transfer as said above re-fixed the hearing in compliance with the order of the Tribunal, Kolkata and in response to which through his ld.AR, the Assessee filed books of account, bills and vouchers before the AO in support of his cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds retention money for realization of liquidated damages if any for the work executed by the assessee, thereby the assessee did not show the impugned amount as receivable in the balance sheet as the realization of the said amount was uncertain and submitted that the tax was offered on the total value of contract work i.e ₹ 1,33,52,210/- in the year under consideration. 6. Further, the Assessee submitted that the retention money is not shown as Receivable that in mercantile system of accounts and it will be shown when the right to receive the income accrued to the assessee. The Assessee relied on the decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT reported in [1969] 71 ITR 291 (SC) and ITO v. Bachu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort vide letter No. ITO-50(4)/Remand Report/Kol/2012-2013/152 dated 29.06.2012 which was sent through JCIT, Range-50, Kolkata vide letter No. JCIT/R-50/Remand Report/2012-13/97 dated 05.07.2012 (through proper channel) which is reproduced below: In the instant case the Assessment Order u/s. 254/143(3) was passed on 21/12/11 at an assessed income of ₹ 5,96,870/-. An addition was made amounting to ₹ 3,70,240/- on account of outstanding balance receivable from simplex Infrastructures Ltd. For contract work which was not reflected in the respective B/sheet. The amount was included in the gross receipts of the assessee as per Mercantile System of Accounting. According to the submission of the assessee and the confirmation receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iability side of the balance sheet showing lesser amount to the said amount. The effect of this is that the appellant concealed the profit to the tune of ₹ 3,70,240/- not showing in the liability side. So the question of double taxation is not there. In this case the appellant relied upon various case laws but the facts are different from this case. In one case the appellant relied that the principle of accounting cannot override the provision of tax statute. This is not in this case. In this case the appellant concealed the income of ₹ 3,70,240/- by not showing the balance of ₹ 3,70,240/- of Simplex Infrastructures in assets side. Considering the above finding I am of the view that the action of the AO treating ₹ 3, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO as issued by the Simplex Infrastructures Ltd, deductor, along with the evidences of payments mentioning the cheque no s and dates of payments of impugned of ₹ 3,70,244/- and thereby, we agree with the submissions of the Ld.AR that the tax was offered on the total value of contract work and we find force in the arguments of the Assessee in respect of the decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court and High Court as discussed above in para s 6 to 9, therefore, as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court the income once taxed can not be taxed again, we hold that the impugned addition was part of gross receipt and as shown income in the profit and loss account, thus, it can not become an addition again bringing the same for taxation for not follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
