Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: empanelment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: cpt :: form 3cd :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: TDS :: due date for vat payment :: VAT RATES :: VAT Audit :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
« From the Courts »
 Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
 Shreemati Devi vs. CIT (Allahabad High Court)
 Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 DCIT vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma (ITAT Mumbai)
 ACIT vs. Jawaharlal Agicha (ITAT Mumbai)
 CIT vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co (Bombay High Court)
 Makes further amendments to Notification no. 157/90-Customs dated 28th March, 1990 regarding temporary admission under the ATA Carnet
 Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI - 2/2016-Customs
 ransfers Of Hon’ble Members Of The ITAT (September 2016)

M/s OSGL Buildwell Pvt.Ltd., LU-108, Second Floor, Pitampura, Delhi 110 088. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-13(1), New Delhi.
January, 29th 2015
                                 `E' : NEW DELHI
                     DELHI BENCH `E

                               GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                        ITA No.
                      Assessment Year : 2008-

M/s OSGL Buildwell Pvt.Ltd.,   Vs.    Assistant Commissioner of
LU-108, Second Floor,                 Income Tax,
Pitampura,                            Circle-
Delhi ­ 110 088.                      New Delhi.
    (Appellant)                           (Respondent)

             Appellant by       :    Shri S.C. Garg, CA.
             Respondent by      :    Shri P. Dam Kanunjha, Sr.DR.


      This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of
learned CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi dated 7th August, 2012 for the AY 2008-

2.    The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

       "1. The ld.ACIT erred in law & on facts in making
       addition of Rs.4324908/- and the ld.CIT(A) erred in
       confirming the said addition to the income of the
       assessee towards difference in contractual receipts
       between those as per AIR data and as per books of
       account on the facts & in the circumstances of the case
       particularly when the difference was duly explained by
       the assessee with evidence.

       2. The ld.ACIT erred in law & on facts in taking the
       total contractual receipts of the appellant as per the AIR
       data rather than as per the books of account of the
       appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case
       when the assessee had duly proved that contractual
       receipts shown in the books of account were according
       to generally accepted accounting principles and the
                                    2                        ITA-5791/Del/2012

       ld.CIT(A) erred in law & on facts in confirming the action
       of the AO.

       3. The ld.ACIT erred in law & on facts in taking
       adverse view of the fact that some contractees did not
       respond to his notices u/s 133(6) particularly when
       notices were sent at the request of the assessee and
       the ld.CIT(A) erred in law & on facts in confirming the
       action of the AO.

       4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law & on facts in confirming
       the action of the AO of rejection of books of account u/s
       145(3) of the Income Tax Act in the facts and
       circumstances of the case.

       5. The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts in observing that the
       appellant had agreed before the AO for inclusion of the
       amounts of Rs.4324908/- as its contract receipts in
       accordance with AIR data. The fact of the matter is that
       the assessee had made a conditional submission and
       had worked out the net effect/deviation in contract
       receipts at Rs.3216950/- vide submissions dated
       09.11.2010.    The submissions were made after
       explaining why the receipts were properly excluded

3.    At the time of hearing before us, it is submitted by the learned
counsel that the assessee derives income from execution of the
contract work. For the year under consideration, the contract receipt
disclosed by the assessee was `83,08,624/-. The assessee had filed
the return disclosing the net loss of `45,36,133/-. That the Assessing
Officer considered the loss disclosed by the assessee as income.
Further, the Assessing Officer also made the addition of `45,37,596/-
for the alleged variation in the contract receipt.   He stated that the
Assessing Officer had received the information from AIR data as per
which the receipt by the assessee was understated in respect of four
projects by a sum of `43,24,908/-.      It is submitted by the learned
counsel that the assessee is following the consistent method of
recording the receipt when the bill submitted by the assessee is
approved and accepted by the contractee.        That the assessee has
recorded all the receipts either in this year or in the next year as per
                                     3                      ITA-5791/Del/2012

the method of accounting being regularly followed by the assessee.
That the Assessing Officer did not give the details to the assessee on
what basis AIR data is being collected. The Assessing Officer also did
not allow adequate opportunity to reconcile the difference between
receipt as per A.I. R. and as per books of account.       He, therefore,
submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be
deleted or alternatively, the matter may be set aside to the file of the
Assessing Officer for providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to
reconcile the difference. He further submitted that if the matter is set
aside, the Assessing Officer should be further directed to exclude the
income from subsequent years if he is making the addition in this year
in respect of the receipt which is recorded by the assessee in the
subsequent year. He also requested that the Assessing Officer may be
directed to treat the returned income as loss of `45,36,133/- and not as

4.        Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the
Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A).       However, he has no
serious objection with regard to setting aside the matter to the file of
the Assessing Officer.
5.        After considering the arguments of both the sides and perusing
the facts of the case, in our opinion, the matter needs re-examination
at the end of the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, set aside the orders
of authorities below and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing
Officer.     We direct the Assessing Officer to first verify whether the
assessee filed the return disclosing loss or profit of `45,36,133/-. In
this regard, he may verify the assessee's profit & loss account, books
of account and then verify whether there was loss or profit of
`45,36,133/-.      Further, he will allow adequate opportunity to the
assessee to reconcile the discrepancy in the receipt of the assessee.
After considering the reconciliation of the assessee and all the facts of
the case available with him, he will make the assessment afresh in
                                      4                       ITA-5791/Del/2012

accordance with law.        However, before we part with the matter, we
may mention that the Assessing Officer should ensure that neither any
receipt remain to be taxed nor same receipt is taxed twice. With these
observations, we set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing

6.    In the result, the appeal of the assessee is deemed to be allowed
for statistical purposes.
      Decision pronounced in the open Court on 28th January, 2015.

                   Sd/-                                Sd/-
     (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG)                              AGRAWAL)
                                                 (G.D. AGRAWAL)
        JUDICIAL MEMBER                          VICE PRESIDENT

Dated : 28.01.2015

Copy forwarded to: -

1.    Appellant    : M/s OSGL Buildwell Pvt.Ltd.,
                     LU-108, Second Floor, Pitampura, Delhi ­ 110 088.

2.    Respondent : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
                   Circle-13(1), New Delhi.
3.    CIT
4.    CIT(A)
5.    DR, ITAT

                                 Assistant Registrar
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Outsourcing Company Offshore Software Outsourcing Software Outsourcing Company India Offshore Outsourcing Company India Software BPO Software Business Process Outsourcing Software Outsourcing India Offsho

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions