9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] in appeal No. 10441/2016-17/ITO, W-3, Skm/2017-18 & 10449/2016-17/ITO, W-3, Skm/2017-18, dated 18/6/2017 arising out of the orders passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. The Cross Objections are filed by the assessee for the AY 2011-12 and 2012-13. Since the issues raised in both the Revenue's appeals are identical as well as the issues in the Cross Objections are interconnected with the Revenue's appeals, all these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed in this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given as under. I.T.A. No. 469/Viz/2018 ( Assessment Years: 2011-12) 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm dealing i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unreconciled amount of Rs. 1,34,716/- was directed to be added to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable on facts and in law. 2. The submissions of the assessee that it did not recognize advances received from customers as sales during the year and treated the transactions as sales in subsequent year are contrary to the revenue recognition method to be followed. 3. As the Assessing Officer after verifying voluminous data of more than 1400 individual entries shown as sundry debtors with details furnished by the assessee during assessment proceedings found tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) is not correct. Even otherwise, the CIT(A), is not correct in considering the liability of AY 2009-10 instead of considering the liability pertaining to the immediately preceding year i.e. AY 2010-11 which is Rs. 3,32,06,534/- while arriving at the above difference. 6. As the assessee did not establish that the unproved liabilities were indeed considered by it while recognizing revenue either during the current year or in other years, the CIT(A) is not correct in deleting the addition relating to such unproved liabilities. 7. As the assessee, during the Assessment proceedings did not reconcile fully the incentives received from TVS motors with those recorded in its books of account, it failed to prove that there is no concealment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 1,34,176/-. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Authorities below. We find from the arguments of the Ld. AR that there is an error in the accounting of the customers' advances in different years which was converted into sales during the subsequent years. Accordingly, it is admitted by the Ld. AR that the tax on income has been deferred to the subsequent assessment years. It is also evident from the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities that the assessee has produced details regarding the customer advances before the Ld. AO who has not disputed the same. Further, as explained by the Ld. AR due to ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have to be added to the income declared which worked out to Rs. 9,85,292/-. This estimation of 6% was on the amount of Rs. 1,64,21,541/- representing the difference between B/f customers advances of the AY 2009-10 and customer advances of this year 2011-12 (Rs. 5,68,36,318 - Rs. 4,04,44,776). Hence, this profit of Rs. 9,85,292/- shall be considered in place of unproved liabilities of Rs. 5,68,36,317/-. The excess amount taken by the AO is hereby deleted." 7. We therefore find that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly considered the current year advances and estimated the profit @ 6% based on the declared profits by the assessee, which were not disputed by the Ld. AO in the earlier years. We therefore find no interference is required in the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has admitted Rs. 9,30,860/-. Therefore, there is an unreconciled difference of Rs. 1,34,716/- which the assessee failed to reconcile but agreed for the addition to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) in his findings in para 6.4 of the order has observed the above facts and rightly directed the Ld. AO to delete Rs. 22,31,200/- and add Rs. 1,34,716/- to the total income of the assessee. We therefore find no interference is required in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this ground and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. I.T.A. No. 470/Viz/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13) 11. In this appeal the Revenue has raised the identical grounds to that of the grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
