IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH `B', HYDERABAD
BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.1172/Hyd/2010
(Assessment year 2005-06)
Asstt. Commissioner of Income- V/s M/s. SVEC Constructions Ltd.,
tax, Circle 3(3), Hyderabad Hyderabad
( PAN - AADCS 2215 B )
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Cross-Objection No.7/Hyd/2011
( in ITA No.1172/Hyd/2010)
(Assessment year 2005-06)
M/s. SVEC Constructions Ltd., V/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax,
Hyderabad Circle 3(3), Hyderabad
( PAN - AADCS 2215 B )
(Cross-Objector) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri V.Raghavendra Rao
Department by : Shri K.Gnana Prakash
Date of Hearing 5.7.2012
Date of Pronouncement 11.7.2012
ORDER
Per D.Karunakara Rao, Accountant Member:
This appeal by the Revenue and Cross-Objection by the
assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-
tax(Appeals) IV, Hyderabad dated 13.6.2010, for the assessment year
2005-06.
2 ITA No.1172/Hyd/2010 & CO 7/Hyd/2011
M/s. SVEC Constructions Ltd., Hyderabad
2. At the outset, we may note that there is a delay of 101 days
in the filing of the cross-objections by the assessee. Assessee has filed a
petition, supported by an affidavit, seeking condonation of delay. It is
pleaded that the cross-objection has come to be filed belatedly due to
genuine misunderstanding of the staff in promptly sending the papers to
the Advocate representing the matters of the assessee for filing of the
same before the Tribunal. We are convinced with the reasonableness of
the cause for the delay in the filing of the cross-objection. We
accordingly condone the delay and admit the cross-petition for
adjudication on merits.
Revenue's Appeal:
ITA No.1172/Hyd/2010 : Assessment year 2005-06
3. Effective grounds of the Revenue in this appeal read as
follows-
"(i) The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) IV Hyderabad
has erred both on facts and in law.
(ii) The CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow credit for
TDS on mobilization advance of Rs.8,64,09,300/- after due
verification although mobilization advance did not form part
of the total turnover of the assessee.
(iii) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee-
company is following mercantile system of accounting as
per which credit for TDS may be allowed in the year in
which the mobilisation advance is deducted form the bills of
the assessee and when it forms part of the gross contract
receipts of the assessee.
(iv) The decisions in the case of (i) Progressive Constructions
Ltd. (ITA No.482 and 557/Hyd/2001) and (ii) BGS-SGS
Soma Joint Venture relied upon by the CIT(A) have not been
accepted by the Revenue and appeals have been made
before the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court."
3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted
that the issue involved in the above grounds of the Revenue is covered by
the consistent decisions of the Tribunal in similar matters. He filed a copy
3 ITA No.1172/Hyd/2010 & CO 7/Hyd/2011
M/s. SVEC Constructions Ltd., Hyderabad
of the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal dated 6.9.2011 in
the case of M/s.CSCHK-SOMA Joint Venture, Hyderabad (ITA
No.1357/Hyd/2010 and CO No.1/Hyd/2011) for the assessment year
2007-08, and hence, submitted that impugned order of the CIT(A) should
be upheld.
4. On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative
strongly supported the order of the CIT(A), reiterating the averments
made in the above grounds of appeal.
5. We heard both sides and perused the material available on
record. We find that as noted in the very grounds of appeal, the issue
involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the consistent decisions of
the Tribunal in similar matters. In the case of M/s. CSCHK SOMA Joint
Venture, Hyderabad (supra), vide its order dated 9.9.2011, copy of which
is furnished before us, the Tribunal following still earlier order of the
Tribunal dated 24.9.2010 in the case of that very assessee for
assessment year 2005-06, held that `credit for TDS is to be given on
corresponding receipts offered for tax including work in progress if the
work in progress was subject to TDS on receipt of advance towards it'.
In the order of the CIT(A) impugned in this appeal, the CIT(A) directed
the assessing officer to verify the TDS made in respect of mobilization
advances of Rs.8,64,09,300/0- and give credit fo5r the same after
necessary verification. Since the direction of the CIT(A) are in
consonance with the consistent view taken by the Tribunal in similar
matters, we find no justification to interfere with the impugned order of
the CIT(A). The same is accordingly upheld and the grounds of the
Revenue in this appeal are dismissed.
6. In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
4 ITA No.1172/Hyd/2010 & CO 7/Hyd/2011
M/s. SVEC Constructions Ltd., Hyderabad
Assessee.s Cross Objection:
C.O. No.7/Hyd/2011
(in ITA No.1172/Hyd/2010) : Assessment year 2005-06
7. The first two effective grounds of the assessee in the cross-
objections are against legality and validity of the reopening of assessment
under S.147/148 of the Act, and the same read as follows-
1. The initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 are invalid for the reason that the
reasons recorded u/s. 148(2) of the IT Act have not been communicated
to the assessee.
2. The proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act are invalid also for the reason that
there was no escapement of income to assessment. The income
originally determined u/s. 143(3) of the IT Act and that determined in
the re-assessment is the same.
At the time of hearing, no serious arguments are advanced by the learned
counsel for the assessee on the issue involved in the above grounds.
Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed.
8. Through the remaining two grounds urged in the cross-
objections, assessee merely seeks to support the order of the CIT(A), in
the light of the grounds of the Revenue in its appeal. Since those
grounds do not warrant any independent adjudication, they are
redundant, and they are accordingly dismissed.
9. In the result, cross-objection of the assessee is also
dismissed.
10. To sum up, appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross-
objection of the assessee are dismissed.
5 ITA No.1172/Hyd/2010 & CO 7/Hyd/2011
M/s. SVEC Constructions Ltd., Hyderabad
Order pronounced in the Court on 11.7.2012
Sd/- Sd/-
(Asha Vijayaraghavan) (D.Karunakara Rao)
Judicial Member. Accountant Member.
Dt/- 11th July, 2012
Copy forwarded to:
1. M/s. SVEC Constructions Ltd., 1014, Raghava Ratna Towers,
Chirag Ali Lane Hyderabad 500 001.
2. Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 3(3), Hyderabad
3. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-IV Hyderabad
4. Commissioner of Income-tax, III, Hyderabad
5. Departmental Representative ITAT, Hyderabad
B.V.S.
|
