TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame contractee, and that there is no other contract having been executed by the assessee, he followed the view taken by him in the AY 2012-13 and granted relief to the assessee - no infirmity in the order passed by the ld CIT(A) - thus the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. - I.T.A. No. 1369/Kol/2017 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2018 - Shri S. S. Godara, JM And Shri M. Balaganesh, AM For The Appellant : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT For The Respondent : Shri A. Bose, Advocate ORDER Per Shri M. Balaganesh, AM This appeal by revenue is arising out of order of CIT(A)-5, Kolkata vide appeal No. 84/CIT(A)-5/Wd-13(2)/16-17 dated 31.03.2017. Assessment was framed by ITO, Wd-13(2), Kolkata u/s. 143(3) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1,02,62,460 3.1. The ld AO observed that the tax deducted by M/s Murti Housing Finance Pvt Ltd was ₹ 1,29,399/- u/s 194C of the Act and as per Form 26AS, the total contractual receipts of assessee was ₹ 64,69,939/-. The ld AO observed that the assessee disclosed only income of ₹ 17,33,118/- as contractual receipt besides receipt on account of sale of building materials for ₹ 73,11,984/-. The ld AO observed that the argument of the assessee that TDS was made from the sale of building materials together with the receipt of service charges was not accepted as there was no justification to deduct TDS on the purchase money of trading materials. Accordingly, the dif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee s own case for the Asst Year 2012-13 in ITA No. 1942/Kol/2016 dated 4.5.2018 wherein it was held as under:- Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground: 1. Whether on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,22,68,725/- made u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for understatement of contractual receipt without appreciating the fact finding of the AO. 5. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record including the paper book filed by the assessee comprising of pages 1 to 99 we find from the pages 57 to 87 of the paper book containing the entire agreement dated 25.07.2010 including the work order i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... All HVAC works Loose Furniture Wardrobes The contractor shall at their own expense, arrange for insurance policies such as workmen compensation policy and contractor s all risk policy effective from the date of commencement of work until final completion of work, which will be certified by Architect/PMC appointed by us. Also rate quoted shall include the costs of supplying photographs showing the work-in-progress from various angles as decided by the Architect. Two sets of photographs to be supplied by the contractor i.e. one set to the Architect and one set to us. The photographs should contain the date of photograph taken printed on it. From the above, it is very clear that the assessee is mandated to supply ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., the details of which are enclosed in page 43 of the paper book. For the sake of convenience the said details are reproduced hereunder: In view of these facts which are starring on us, we have no hesitation to uphold the finding of Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground: 2. Whether on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 27,43,417/- made u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for undisclosed investment in the absence of evidence of purchase ignoring the observations of the AO. 9. We have heard the rival submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue before us for sustaining the addition towards undisclosed investment u/s 69 of the Act in the sum of ₹ 27,43,417/-. In these facts and circumstances, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 10. Ground no. 3 raised by the revenue is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 11. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 5.1. We find that the ld CITA had followed the order passed for the Asst Year 2012-13 in assessee s own case, which was upheld by this tribunal in its order dated 4.5.2018 supra. The ld DR was not able to furnish any evidence contrary to the facts on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
