Malwa Coop. L & C Society Ltd. ITO (ITAT Amritsar)
In this case Hon’ble ITAT already determined the turnover, and the direction was made accordingly. Also related to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi) specific direction was made by the Hon’ble ITAT in its order dated 13.10.204 in ITA No. 483/Asr/2014.
ITAT heard the rival submissions and relied on the documents available in the In its fact, that the gross receipt should be determined by allowing the reasonable deduction of the items like TDS, VAT, security letter cess and other deduction. Accordingly, the assessee made a correct calculation related to calculation of the contract receipt. Both the Revenue authorities cannot go beyond the jurisdiction of all the orders of Hon’ble ITAT. Hon’ble ITAT directed denavo assessment it does not mean that the essence of the judgment should be avoided in any means.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AMRITSAR
The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda [in brevity the CIT(A)], bearing Appeal No. 187/15-16 dated 23.11.2017 u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in brevity the Act], in respect of Assessment Year 2010-11. The impugned order was generated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Muktsar [in brevity the A.O.] passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.09.2015.
2. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessment was made as per the direction of coordinate Bench of ITAT Amritsar bearing ITA No. 483/Asr/2014 dated 13.10.2014. The coordinate Bench had made the following observation which is extracted as below:
“6. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. There is no dispute to the fact that the AO has completed assessment on 28.03.2013 after providing opportunity on 25.03.2013 for producing books of account and expenditure vouchers. Therefore, in my view, the assessee has not allowed adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessment has been made in a hasty manner. Though, the AO has mentioned that the assessee has not produced complete vouchers bearing complete address of the labour to verify the expenses claimed. It is also not in dispute that the AO without discussing the disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi) went on to allow deduction u/s 80P(2)(c) of the Act at V 50.000/- without discussing anything in the main body of the order but has simply allowed deduction of Rs.50,000/- as mentioned hereinabove. No sufficient opportunity for disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi) as claimed has been given to the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, all the grounds of the assessee ’s appeal are set aside to the file of the AO, who will decide the issue denovo but after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee with respect to the production of books of account, disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi) and allowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi). Accordingly, the arguments made by Ld. DR will not help the revenue. Thus, all the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.”
During the first assessment the gross receipt of the assessee was determined Rs. 69,02,988/- and the profit @ of 6% was assessed on the gross receipt amount to Rs.4,14,180/-. As per the direction of the ITAT, the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment and the books of account was rejected u/s 145 of the Act. The gross contract receipt of the assessee was determined by the revenue amount to Rs.85,89,152/-. Accordingly, the profit was calculated @ of 6% on the gross contract receipt which is amount to Rs.5,15,350/-. The deduction was allowed u/s 80P(2)(vi) of the Act. The society is engaging in collective disposal of labour of his member and entitled for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi). The gross contract receipt was declared by the assessee amount to Rs.69,02,988/- which was enhanced by the revenue amount to Rs.85,89,152/- and had determined net profit @ of 6% which was the same in both the assessments. The net profit was calculated amount to Rs.2,07,675/- on enhanced gross contract and tax was levied. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) uphold the order of the ld. AO related to enhancement of turnover. Further, the appellate authority converted the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi) to 80P(2)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before us.
3. The ld. counsel Mr. Tarun Bansal vehemently argued and filed a written submission which containing page nos. 1 to 84, which is kept in the record. As per the ld. counsel, the assessee received the gross contract receipt from working in different department of Government of Punjab. The turnover which is determined by the ld. AO is gross receipt which was the contract value. The lot of other parts are deducted from turn over. In the result, the gross contractual value is calculating Rs.69,02,988/-. Accordingly, the ld. counsel had submitted a letter to the ld. AO which is annexed in page no. 33 to 35 of APB with details calculation of turnover of assessee. The calculation of gross receipt is extracted as follows:
