TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above circumstances, no occasion to apply Section 69C of the Act would arise. Held that:- The proposed question that the Tribunal held that there is a difference in the book value and the physical value of the Work in Progress is factually not correct. We did point out this to the counsel for the Revenue but he insisted to pressing this question. However, during the course of his submission, he was not able to substantiate the above presumption in the question as framed. In the above view, in the facts of this case, question as proposed is academic, unless the Revenue first challenges finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. The finding of fact is that, there is no excess work in progress than that declared by the RespondentAs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008 were found. It was noticed the figures indicated in the valuation report of the site engineers were higher than the workinprogress recorded in the books of the Respondent as on 30.11.2008. As per the provisional Profit and Loss Account, this difference was ₹ 9.30 Crores. Thus, the Respondent had agreed on 16.2.2008 to addition of ₹ 10 Crores being made. However, at the end of subject Assessment Year in its return of income the Respondent had not offered the additional income of ₹ 10 Crores. Nevertheless, the Assessing Officer proceeded to add ₹ 10 Crores being the additional income on account of excess work in progress, which was financed out of unexplained source of income. Thus, attracting Section 69C of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The AO has not brought on record any material to show that the appellant incurred expenses out of books of accounts. The only material on the basis of which he made addition u/s.69C was the valuation report certified by the site engineers. These valuation reports indicated existence of WIP of the value shown in the reports on that particular date, i.e., 30.11.2008. Therefore, the appellant was in the possession of the WIP of value which has been certified by the site engineers. As this value was more than the value recorded in the books of accounts, the appellant was in the possession of the excess WIP as on 30.11.2008. As discussed earlier, this excess WIP has already been added to the income of the appellant in view of incorporation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in November, 2008 and actually arriving at the value on physical verification which is reflected in the return of income as on 31.3.2009. In the above circumstances, no occasion to apply Section 69C of the Act would arise. 6 Mr. Tejveer Singh the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant Revenue states that the Respondent Assessee has itelf offered ₹ 10 Crores as additional income consequent to the search on 18.12.2008. This by letter dated 16.2.2009 on account of workinprogress. It is submitted that the source of the above expenditure on account of workinprogress has not been explained. Therefore, Section 69C of the Act would be applicable. 7 We find that both the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal have rendered a finding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal. The finding of fact is that, there is no excess work in progress than that declared by the RespondentAssessee as on 31.3.2009 and the valuation done of the workinprogress as on 31.11.2008 was only on provisional basis. 9 Moreover, even if assume that the closing stock i.e. workinprogress is in excess of that recorded/disclosed by the Respondent, the same has to be added to the income only under Section 69A of the Act as held by this Court in Dialust v. DCIT 261 ITR 456. In fact, the impugned order of the Tribunal places reliance upon the above decision of this Court. No submission was made on the part of the Revenue as to why the above decision is not applicable to the present facts. 10 In view of the above, the question as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
