9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the assessee company is engaged in building commercial, residential complex, housing roads, railways, airports and also into construction and maintenance of roads, rails, bridges, tunnels, ports, harbour, runways etc., and operates as a Civil contractor. During the assessment year under consideration, it filed it's return of income on 28.02.2022 declaring total income at Rs. (-)21,82,31,073/-. The case of the assessee company has been selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer-CPC issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and u/sec.142(1). The Authorised Representative of the Assessee filed his reply from time to time. However, the Assessing Officer has not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee and determined the income of the assessee company at Rs. (-) 8,50,57,850/- as against the returned income of Rs. (-) 21,82,31,073/-. While assessing the income of the assessee company, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 13,00,11,072/- on account of difference in receipts as per 26AS and ITR; disallowed interest expenditure u/sec.201(1A) at Rs. 21,42,151/- and disallowed donation expenses of Rs. 10,20,000/- vide order dated 22.12.2023 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of mobilization advance was only at Rs. 13.24cr. and for this difference also there is no satisfactory explanation offered by the assessee. The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has changed it's stand that initially the assessee had received amount towards mobilization advance and thereafter, he stated that it is the mobilization and other advances. The assessee has also taken another stand that the said advance amount is towards work to be carried-out and advance for other materials. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, not convincing the different stands taken by the assessee-company, made the impugned addition of Rs. 13,00,11,072/- in the hands of the assessee-company. However, in appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition basing on the audited balance-sheet as on 31.03.2021 without verifying the bills/vouchers, TDS for the differential amounts in question. He submitted that even the learned CIT(A) had not call for any remand report while deleting the impugned addition of Rs. 13,00,11,072/- and, therefore, the order of the learned CIT(A) is not in accordance with law and the order of Assessing Officer should be confirmed or in the alternative the matter in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice(s) issued by the learned jurisdictional Assessing Officer or taking adjournments under any pretext or failed to furnish requisite documents as called for, the learned Assessing Officer is at liberty to decide the matter in issue as per fact and law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, ITA.No.969/Hyd./2024 of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA.No.970/Hyd./2024 - A.Y. 2022-2023 : 9. Facts of the case, in brief, are that in the instant appeal, the assessee has filed it's return of income on 15.10.2022 declaring business loss of Rs. 18,64,69,292/- and claimed refund of Rs. 5,38,43,088/-. The case of the assessee-company was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer issued various statutory notices u/sec.143(2), 142(1), show cause notice and also heard the assessee through video conferencing on 20.03.2024. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 9,99,09,440/- by estimating the gross profit of the assessee company @ 10% of it's total turnover in absence of properly explaining the differential amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further there were mismatch in inventions of the assessee company. The learned CIT(A) without calling remand report and not giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer, based on the submissions of the assessee deleted the impugned addition of Rs. 8,65,59,856/- basing on the audited books of accounts of the assessee company u/sec.44AB of the Act and, therefore, he pleaded that the matter in issue may be sent back to the file of learned jurisdictional CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice. 13. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee, on the other hand, strongly relied on the order of the learned CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee had incurred idle charges during Covid period and coupled with this there was increase in prices subsequent to the Covid and, therefore, his GP was marginally fell down compared to the previous year. The learned CIT(A) after considering these submissions of the assessee and also the books of accounts audited u/sec.44AB of the Act and found to be in order, the learned CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 8,65,59,856/-. He, accordingly, pleaded that the order of the learned CIT(A) be upheld in the interest of substantial justice and submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
