TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst time before the Tribunal and the Tribunal proceeded to hold that a perusal of the sub-contract as also the invoice showed that the area was an estimated quantity only and therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere disallow the expenditure. Tribunal, while testing the correctness of the order passed by the CIT(A), is required to examine as to whether there is any error of fact or law committed by the CIT(A). In the assessee's case, both before the Tribunal and the CIT(A), the assessee could not reconcile the difference and for the first time, the assessee attempted to do so before the Tribunal. Two options would be available to the Tribunal, the first being, in our opinion, the most effective, is to call for a remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010-11. 2. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law: i. Whether the Tribunal was right in remanding the issue back for verification of inflated expenditure for the assessment year 2011-12 while allowing relief for another assessment year 2010-11 when the facts are similar on the same issue without there being any change in the circumstances for both the assessment years ? And ii. Whether the inflated expenditure admitted by the assessee is to be allowed despite the fact that the assessee could not reconcile the statements nor could prove the same with supporting documentary evidence? 3. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,80,000/-. The Assessing Officer found this to be a discrepancy namely the value of the sub-contract work was higher than the value of the work awarded to the assessee by the said M/s.Marg Limited. The assessee was called upon to explain the same. It appears that the assessee did not produce any document to reconcile the discrepancy and therefore, the Assessing Officer held that the genuineness of the expenditure claimed under the cost of operation for ₹ 9,88,56,012/-, out of which, the expenditure pertaining to the said M/s.Coastal Projects Private Limited was for a sum of ₹ 9,63,25,478/- was unable to be proved by the assessee. Hence, the Assessing Officer held that apart from ₹ 6 Crores, which was offered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vt. Ltd., and the area of the contract work sub-contracted was higher than the area which has been taken on contract by the assessee from M/s.Marg Ltd. A perusal of the work order dated 02.2.2010 tallies with that of the assessment order but a copy of the invoice raised by M/s.Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd., clearly shows that the area to be approximately 9 lakhs sq. mtrs. which is less than the area 10,20,408 sq. mtrs. contracted by the assessee. This being so, it cannot be said that the sub-contract given by the assessee to M/s.Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd., is not genuine or that it is not proved. A perusal of the sub-contract as also the invoice clearly shows that the area is an estimated quantity only. This being so, we find no reason to disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer for a fresh consideration. The Tribunal did not exercise any one of the options, but proceeded to take note of certain documents placed before the Tribunal for the first time and granted relief to the assessee. We do not agree with the procedure adopted by the Tribunal and without examining the fact situation, the Tribunal ought not to have granted relief especially when the assessee could not reconcile the difference before either the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration and ought not to have allowed the appeal. 11. For all the above reasons, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
