2013 (7) TMI 59 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal dismissed on sales vs. contracts addition for AY 2007-08.

The revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2007-08, regarding the addition made by the Assessing Officer on sales booked vs. contracts ... Unaccounted sales – Assessing Officer made addition to assessee’s income – CIT allowed deletion of amount – Held that:- Commissioner of Income Tax(A) took right approach to verify details submitted by assessee during assessment proceedings – Details and copies of accounts submitted by Bahujan Samaj Party exactly match with details submitted by appellant – No infirmity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with impugned order – Decided against the revenue. Issues:1. Revenue's appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-XXIV, New Delhi for AY 2007-08.2. Addition of Rs.18,54,000 made by the Assessing Officer on account of sale booked vs. contracts executed with TDS deducted.3. Assessee's cross objection challenging the departmental appeal and the addition made by the Assessing Officer.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2007-08. The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the addition made by the Assessing Officer pertained to contracts executed with TDS deducted, not sale booked.2. The assessee filed a cross objection stating that the departmental appeal was bad in law and should be dismissed. The Assessing Officer's addition was challenged on the grounds that the sales figures were supported by various documents, including Tax Audit Reports and Delhi VAT Returns. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition after verifying details from the party involved.3. The facts revealed that the assessee, a civil contractor, declared a net income of Rs.9,50,961. The Assessing Officer added Rs.18,54,000 to the income, claiming lack of documentary evidence for the declared sales. The CIT(A) found that all payments received by the assessee were duly declared in the returns, matching the details submitted by the party involved.4. The revenue argued that the difference between the receipt and the sale amount should be added to the income. However, the AR contended that the CIT(A) had verified the details from the party involved, leading to the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the details submitted by the assessee were in line with the information obtained from the party.5. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, as proper verification had been done, and all payments were declared in the returns. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed, along with the assessee's cross objection, which became infructuous.This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment comprehensively, highlighting the arguments presented by both parties and the reasoning behind the final decision of the Tribunal.