TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10-11. 2. First we shall take up the appeal filed by the revenue in I.T.A. No. 789/Kol/2015. The appellant revenue filed this appeal on 03.06.2015 and Registry issued many notices to the assessee intimating the fixation of date of hearing by RPAD which are as follows: Sl. No. Date of notice Date of hearing Remarks i. 14.08.2017 25.09.2017 DR requested adjournment ii. 25.09.2017 20.11.2017 No proceedings iii. 20.11.2017 09.01.2018 None appeared on behalf of the assessee iv. 09.01.2018 27.02.2018 None appeared on behalf of the assessee v. 27.02.2018 25.04.2018 None appeared on behalf of the assessee vi. 25.04.2018 19.06.2018 No proceedings vii. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of understatement of two receipts of M/s BHEL, the CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer did not follow accounting policy and BHEL has paid ₹ 14,78,953/- which is reflected in the profit loss account of the assessee as on 31.03.2010 and also in the TDS certificate in form 26AS. Further he held the ledger of M/s BHEL in the books of the assessee also reflects the said accounts and held that addition made on account of understatement of two receipts in respect of BHEL is not justified and deleted both the additions. The relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below: 6.1. In the case of M/s SNC Power Corporation Pvt. Ltd.., the Assessing Officer in Table-B has given figures of bills payable as on 01.04.2009 at ₹ 70,54,999/- and the bills raised in the financial year 2009-10 at ₹ 1,98,34,856/-. These two figures together comes to ₹ 2,68,89,855/-. Similarly the Assessing Officer has given figure of bills paid during the financial year 2009-10 at Rs .1,51,72,100/- and the closing balance as on 31.03.2010 at ₹ 1,17,17,755/-. These two figures together comes to ₹ 2,68,89,855/-. As per the Assessing Officer the contract receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. 2009-10 and this figure being opening balance cannot be considered for such calculation as has been done by the A.O. The A.O. has mentioned that the appellant is following mercantile system of accounts and yet without understanding the mercantile system of accounts, the A.O. has proceeded to include the opening balance of bills payable in this case. Besides, the A.O. has also included the bills paid during the year along with the closing balance of the bills payable in order to arrive at the figure of ₹ 2,68,89,855/- which is again grossly faulty method of accounting by the A.O. The Appellant in his audited balance sheet in the break- up of Schedule' Lt which is gross sales figure as on 31.03.2010 has clearly shown the figure of contract receipts from M/s. SNC Power Corporation (P) Ltd. of ₹ 2,27,80,457/-. This 'figure has not been denied by M/s. SNC Power Corporation (P) Ltd. and after making various adjustments such as TDS, Security Deposit, retention, other recovery etc., out of this gross bill amounting to ₹ 2,27,80,457/-, the appellant was paid ₹ 1,83,95,350/-. This figure of ₹ 2,27,80,457/- is the gross bill raised by M/s. SNC Power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case, in the Table- B , as stated that the bills payable in the case of M/s. BHEL as on as of ₹ 25,2 ,590/- and the bills paid during the financial year is of ₹ 13,41,913/- and the closing balance as on 31.03.2010 is of ₹ 11,80,677/-. Thus as per the A.O. the contract receipt ought to be shown by the appellant in the P L A/c should have been ₹ 25,22,590/- and since the appellant has shown ₹ 14,78,953/- in the P L Account, the difference of ₹ 10,43,637/- (Rs. 25,22,590/- - ₹ 14,78,953/-) is stated as understatement of contract receipt. As has already been stated in Para 6.1 of this order, the method of calculation of the A.O in the case of BHEL in deriving this figure of ₹ 10,43,637/- is again full of loopholes and the A.O. has again followed his own unique hybrid system of accounting to arrive at this figure in a contrived manner. In this regard, M/s. BHEL vide their letter dated 19.03.2013 have clearly stated that as a contractee, they have not recognized the liability of the bill amounting to ₹ 11,80,867/- and they have not passed any accounting entry on this amount in their books of account in the financial year 2009-10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
