TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the main contractor M/s IVRCL. They deducted a sum of ₹ 22.99 crores from the bill of the assessee on account of the materials supplied and expenditure incurred by them. Only a sum of ₹ 12.38 crores was actually paid to the assessee. On that basis a sum of ₹ 4,95,970/- was the income offered by the assessee in the return of income. However, the Assessing Authority after scrutiny of the entire material on record added a sum of ₹ 80,64,764/-. Thus, the total income was determined at ₹ 85,60,730/-. The said income with reference to the contract receipts of ₹ 13.37 crores works out to 6.4%. Therefore, the contention that it works out to 0.12% is erroneous. Even in respect of the main contract, in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee is a sub-contractor. He filed a return of income declaring his total income at ₹ 4,95,970/- along with the audit report in Form No. 3CB and 3CD. The assessing authority passed an order under Section 143 (2) of the Act determining the total income at ₹ 85,60,730/-. The tax was paid. The Commissioner of Income Tax issued notice under Section 263 of the Act calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the order of assessment passed should not be revised as it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessee filed his detailed objections showing cause. However, over-ruling the said objections the Commissioner of Income Tax held that the record clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has not ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority satisfied himself with the income as returned by the assessee being cash credits and brought it to tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Assessing Authority had adopted the permissible course available in law in framing assessment of the assessee s income who had not rendered any loss to the revenue and, therefore, allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed under Section 263 of the Act and restored the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue is in appeal. 4. The Appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order under 263 when the Revisional Authority had directe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e material on record clearly discloses, out of the total receipts of ₹ 35.33 crores, the contractor has paid for the materials supplied to the extent of ₹ 22.99 crores, as such the assessee did not receive the said amount. Though the assessee had shown a profit of only ₹ 4.95 lakhs, the Assessing Authority added a sum of ₹ 80,64,764/- and determined the income at ₹ 85,60,730/-. It works out to 6.4% of net contract receipts of ₹ 13.37 crores and, therefore, he submits there is no error which has resulted in loss to the revenue. Therefore, he submits that no case for interference is made out. 7. The material on record discloses that, ₹ 35.38 crores is the gross bill. The assessee is working under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
