TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffice to say, it is an admitted fact that the assessee has nowhere declined the department s clinching stand all along that he had never disclosed the work in progress at all in his books through-out. AO foregoing detailed discussion has also not invoked the so-called accrual principle which could be held to have been rightly appreciated in the CIT(A)'s impugned order. This is thus a clearcut instance wherein the impugned addition ought had been assessed as unexplained work in progress only. Question as to whether such a change in the head of income, if at all, could be allowed to be made in sec.254 proceedings is concerned, we find that not only the hon'ble jurisdictional high court s landmark decision in Ahmedabad Electric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-5, Pune has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.6,56,89,219/- on account of claim made to Samcon Infrastructure Corporation (SIC) by the assessee since it was clearly established that the assessee had executed the work SIC to the tune of Rs.6,56,89,219/-. 2. It is prayed that the order of Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-5, Pune be set aside and that of assessing officer be restored. 3. The appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal on or before the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contract was awarded to Shree Satav Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (known as SSCPL ) in the year 2003 from Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh Govt. In the same year 20th Jan 2003 SSCPL entered in agreement for work order with M/a Samcon Infrastructure Corp. (known as SIC ) and SIC execution agent on behalf of SSCPL for lumpsum of Rs.15.90 crores. In the year 2003 April SIC and assesses entered into agreement for sub-contacting the work allocated to SIC by SSCPL. In the month of Dec. 2006 SIC abandoned the project work sub-contracted by SSCPL due to disputes among the parties and SSCPL blacklisted SIC and terminated the agreement entered with SIC. SSCPL approached assessee and made agreement with assessee on 1st Jan. 2007. Assessee stated in his lette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and same was served upon the assessee. 08. It is seen from the above discussion the reason recorded by the Assessing Officer is correct and satisfactory. Hence, it is clearly escapement of income. An amount of Rs.6,56,89,219/- added in the hands of the assessee. Penalty proceeding U/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income initiated separately. 4.2. It is at this stage, the learned counsel raised his multiple arguments quoting Rule-27 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 that the Assessing Officer wrongly initiated sec.148/147 proceedings against the assessee after recording his reasons that the assessee s taxable income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment . Learned counsel quo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;s order under challenge which stood dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.07.2022 with liberty to raise all these pleas as per hon'ble jurisdictional high court s above stated decision. The same is not found to be applicable in the given peculiar facts and circumstances. 4.4. Learned counsel at this stage sought to refer to Rule 27 (supra) which are also not found as applicable once the CIT(A) had not decided any of these grounds against the assessee in the lower appellate proceedings. Faced with the situation, we adopt stricter interpretation as per Commissioner vs. Dilip Kumar Co. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) to reject the assessee s instant legal arguments. 5. Learned counsel further argued that the Assessing Officer h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etter dated 04.01.2008 at pages 24 to 38 that the impugned work in progress even did not pertain to the relevant financial year 2007-08 so as to be assessed in assessment year 2008-09. 7. We find no merit in the assessee s instant arguments on merits as well. Suffice to say, it is an admitted fact that the assessee has nowhere declined the department s clinching stand all along that he had never disclosed the work in progress at all in his books through-out. The Assessing Officer s foregoing detailed discussion has also not invoked the so-called accrual principle which could be held to have been rightly appreciated in the CIT(A)'s impugned order. This is thus a clearcut instance wherein the impugned addition ought had been assessed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
