9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reframed questions of law, for our consideration: "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,48,03,984/on the account of alleged unaccounted cash receipt to the income of the assessee for the relevant Assessment Year? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,23,64,632/(net) to the income of the Assessee by accepting the project completion method of accounting regularly followed by the Assessee?" 3. The Respondent-Assessee is engaged in executing the contracts for interior decoration. The Respondent-Assessee has, inter alia, executed the work of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the project completion date are inter related and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer in both the counts. 6. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal, seeking admission of this appeal. 7. Re: Question (a): (i) The impugned order of the Tribunal holds that the entire basis of seeking to add an amount of Rs. 2.48 Crores for the subject Assessment Year arises out of Fund Flow Statement (FFS) found during the search at the residence of Mr. Suresh Nanda. The impugned order records the fact that the FFS gave details of payments made up to 22nd December, 2005 and as per the statement, an amount of Rs. 3.72 Crores was paid to the Respondent-Assessee till that date. The Respondent-Assessee, out of the above amounts of Rs. 3.72 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 2006-07 against the Respondent-Assesssee. (v) Moreover, as rightly held by the Tribunal, the FFS is being partly relied upon by the Revenue. This, is not permissible. (vi) In the aforesaid finding of fact, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 8. Re: Question (b): (i) The Respondent-Assessee has admittedly offered to tax an amount of Rs. 1.23 Crores during the Assessment Year 2008-09. This, on the basis of the project completion method as followed by it viz: the final bill was prepared in April, 2007. The Assessing Officer rejected the Books of Account and proceeds to hold that the entire project was completed in the previous year relevant to subject Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. Therefore, the theory of artificially postponing the completion of contract, was not found justified. (iv) Mr. Kotangle, learned Counsel in support of the Appeal, relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer & the CIT(A). (v) We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal records the fact that the Assessing Officer has brought an amount to tax as the unaccounted cash receipts only on the basis the opinion of the search party. This without having considered the documents on record and the submissions made by the Respondent-Assessee in support of its contention that an arbitration between the parties, was pending. Thus, there is no basis to hold that the preparation of final bill was postponed, so as to postpone the income to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
