Jeen Mata Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
The ld. AR of the assessee argued that merely there is a difference in the 26AS and the books results, there cannot be an addition to returned income the books of account of the assessee duly audited. AO has not found any single defect in the books of accounts that has been produced before the Assessing Officer. The assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Even, the inquiry made u/s 133(6) has properly been explained by the AR of the assessee in the assessment proceedings and reply is reproduced in the assessment order. The main contentions is that the other party has booked the expenses, that cannot be the reason while making the assessment in the case of the assessee, when the contract receipt got reflected in the subsequent year as per regular method of accounting followed. Surprisingly one addition is based on 26AS amount and amount in books and another from the expenses booked by the assessee and income of two years comparison. This shows how the additions were made by followings choose & pick. It is only elementary that information as per data base of the Revenue authorities cannot be, by itself, a legally sustainable basis for making addition to the income of the assessee and that such imports are based starting point for appropriate inquiry which in this case made and explained by the assessee & reconciliation to that want also made. There is nothing more than this information input which has been put against the assessee. We have noted that the audited books of accounts and reconciliation and the various entities contract amount offered for tax over a period & time. Only difference between the contract value of each party matches over a period of time irrespective of the year offered by the assessee and therefore, grievance of the Revenue that the assessee has not offered correct income is fully explained by the assessee by filing the chart.
The income offered for both the parties, in respect of which the addition made almost reconciled and offered for in the regular books, AO has not rejected the book results. Therefore, it is not required to disturb the books result which has been audited by an independent auditor. Thus, the addition made for an amount of Rs. 18,78,750/-, Rs. 15,23,978/- totaling to Rs. 34,02,728/- as per ground No. 1 are deleted on the basis of finding discussed herein above.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR
This appeal is filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 24.01.2019 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
2. The hearing of the matter was scheduled through Video Conferencing by both the parties in view of prevalent government guidelines on account of ongoing COVID-19 pandemic situation in the country.
3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before us are as under:-
“1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition, so made, of Rs. 18,78,750/- & 15,23,978/- on account of difference between the amount reflected as per TDS Form 26AS and receipts recorded in books of accounts. The addition so made and confirmed by the CIT(A) being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, kindly be deleted in full.
2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the lumpsum disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The disallowance so made and confirmed by the CIT(A) being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, kindly be deleted in full.
3. The ld. AO further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act and as also in withdrawing interest u/s 244A of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging and withdrawal of any such interest. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.
4. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing. ”
4. The relevant facts, as culled out from the records is that, the assessee company is engaged in the business of labour contractor supplier with machinery under affordable housing policy for the year under consideration. The assessee company filed its return of income declaring income at Rs. 5,21,007/- on 30.03.2015 through e-filing portal and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS due to difference in turnover between 26AS and books of account. In the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has observed that turnover declared by the assessee for the year under consideration at Rs. 67,84,050/-. Whereas the turnover as reflected as per 26AS is Rs. 86,62,800/- the difference of Rs. 18,78,750/- is added back in case of the contract received from M/s Sidhi Vinayak Affordable Homes. Considering that the party has also booked that amount in their books as confirmed under enquiry made u/s 133(6) of the Act. In another case addition in respect of M/s Bhairav Township Pvt. Ltd, the Assessing Officer has observed that there is a difference between income offered and expenses booked. Therefore, he has derived the figure of addition at Rs. 15,23,978/- being the difference of the expenses booked and income offered, the same is derived as under:-
Comments are closed.