TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iraj, for the Respondent. P.C: This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), assails the order dated 30th April, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 30th April, 2015 of the Tribunal, is in respect of Assessment Year 200708. 2. Mr. Kotangle, learned Counsel for the Revenue urges the following 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 ₹ 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 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant's income at ₹ 5.09 Crores. 4. Being aggrieved, the Respondent-Assessee filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By an order dated 27th March, 2014, Appeal filed by the Respondent-Assessee was rejected. 5. On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the Respondent-Assessee's Appeal on the two issues. It held that the issue of cash receipts and 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 amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... according to the Revenue, an amount of ₹ 2.48 Crores cannot be a subject matter of tax in the previous year relevant to subject Assessment Year but is only being taxed as this amount had to be taxed in the Assessment Year 2006-07. If Revenue is of the view that the income chargeable to tax for Assessment Year 2006-07 has not been paid, then it is open to the Revenue to take such proceedings as are available to it in law for the subject Assessment Year 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 q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Respondent-Assessee that there was a dispute between Mr. Suresh Nanda with regard to the payments to be made and the same has been referred to the Arbitrator. Besides, the impugned order records that the neither the Respondent-Assessee nor Mr. Suresh Nanda have admitted to receiving or paying cash for the work done. In the above view, the Tribunal held that there is no evidence of unaccounted cash receipts by the Respondent-Assessee. Thus, allowed the appeal of the Respondent Assessee. 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
