9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1023X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Id. Pr. CIT is completely wrong and incorrect in alleging that assessee had not filed any reply/enclosures without verifying the portal as assessee filed submissions along with documents various times and also requested many times to consider the same, even after that Id. Pr.CIT not considered any response of assessee, therefore notice/order u/s. 263 is against all the cannons of law. 3. Because, Id. Pr. CIT erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing proper opportunity of being heard, though no response of assessee is considered. 4. That, Id. PCIT has erred in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263 on the basis that Id. AO failed to conduct enquiries and verification on the issue, though detailed enquiries are conducted on the issue and additions have already been made, which are pending before ld. CIT(A). 5. That, Id. PCIT erred on merits in directing to make an addition of Rs. 94,52,860 (2,61,23,620-1,66,70,700) which is only on a/c of a clerical mistake by not considering the correct figure of Rs. 1,37,38,732 instead of Rs. 2,61,23,620 as is erroneously mentioned by ld AO in reproducing the figures given by the assessee, which is apparent on the record and even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts (As referred in the table mentioned in para 2 of the order, dated 28.03.2021, under section 263 of the Act.), inferred that the appellant/assessee had claimed excess expenses over the corresponding revenue of Royal Home project under the heads (i) material cost and (ii) labour charges aggregating to Rs. 94,52,860/- on the reasoning that the receipts of Rs. 1,66,70,760/- only of Royal Home project had been disclosed in the Profit & Loss account as against the corresponding expenses of Rs. 2,61,23,620/- of Royal Home project under the heads material cost and labour charges. Accordingly, the PCIT held that the AO had done under-assessment by income of Rs. 94,52,860/-. Thus, the PCIT, vide order dated 28.03.2021, passed under section 263 of the Act, held that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore, set aside the order of the AO with specific directions for enhancing the income of the appellant/assessee by Rs. 94,52,860/-. The order dated 28.03.2021 passed under section 263 of the Act was challenged by the appellant/assessee before the Tribunal, who vide order dated 22.09.2022 in ITA No. 643/Del/2021 remanded the matter back to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 88,685/- 28.85 4. Ellora Infratech Pvt. Ltd. 38,72,30,560/- 1,23,84,888/- 8,50,000/- 17,84,47,228/- 2,76,20,027/- 2,88,30,170/- 48,86,855/- 5.1 It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that there is no dispute on the aggregate quantum of expenses under the heads (i) material cost of Rs. 2,88,30,170/- and (ii) labour charges of Rs. 48,86,855/-. The issue in dispute here is only with respect to the apportionment of these expenses [(i) material cost of Rs. 2,88,30,170/- and (ii) labour charges of Rs. 48,86,855/-] amongst Royal Home project and Ellora Infratech. In other words, the claim of the appellant/assessee is that the expenses of Royal Home project under the heads (i) material cost and (ii) labour charges are Rs. 1,06,79,248/- and Rs. 30,59,484/- as against the Revenue's claim of Rs. 2,30,64,136/- and Rs. 39,09,484/- respectively. The Ld. Counsel further demonstrated with the help of the above tabular details that if the expenses under the heads (i) material cost and (ii) labour charges as per the order dated 28.03.2021 passed under section 263 of the Act are considered then the expenses in aggregate will be more than the exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions to the assessee. As stated earlier there was no basis or primary record showing the expenses project wise. Not only this the new figures are clearly manipulated because the expenses debited to two projects namely, Park Escape & Arien Metal Private Limited, now match exactly (to the last odd rupee) both vis-a-vis 1. Material consumed. 2. Labour Charges. 9. To sum up the story the assessee has brought up claiming that the earlier figures given by itself were typing mistake is rejected. The new figures are not reliable, are not backed by primary record or evidence in support and the above fact show that these are manipulated." contended that the appellant/assessee did not bring any material on the record during the set aside proceedings before the PCIT; therefore, he, vide impugned order, had rightly rejected the claim of the appellant/assessee. The Ld. DR further contended that the project wise details of expenses were not maintained by the appellant/assessee and therefore, it showed same amount of (i) material cost of Rs. 28,83,017/- and (ii) labour charges of Rs. 4,88,685/ for Park Escape and Arian Metal Projects though the corresponding income therefrom disclosed in the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the order dated 22.09.2022 in ITA No. 643/Del/2021 lead to the inference that the PCIT has rightly assumed the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Hence, those grounds of appeal which question the legality of the original order passed under section 263 of the Act also stand dismissed. 9. As far as the last two grounds are concerned, we find merit in the arguments and contentions of the Ld. AR on the simple reasoning that the AO cannot disallow that expenditure or work out income relatable to such expenditure, on accrual basis, which had not been claimed in the Profit & Loss account. Undisputedly, the aggregate quantum of expenditure under the heads material cost and labour charges are Rs. 2,88,30,170/- and Rs. 48,86,855/- respectively. The apportionment of these expenses has to be done amongst all four projects. There is dispute on quantum of expenditure amongst Royal Home and Ellora Infratech. We find merit in the argument that if the expenditure of all four projects under the heads (i) material cost and (ii) labour charges, as per the PCIT, were taken at Rs. 2,30,64,136/- & Rs. 39,09,484/- for Royal Home, Rs. 28,83,017/- & Rs. 4,88,685/- for Park Escape, Rs. 28,83,017/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
