2022 (9) TMI 579 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows Revenue's appeal for factual verification on work-in-progress evidence. Assessee's cross objection dismissed on tax effect.

The Revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, as the Tribunal ordered the second ground to be sent back to the AO for factual verification ... Admission of additional evidence before CIT-A - Determination of Work-in-progress - Default in CIT-A admitting additional evidence regarding the WIP of NH-9 project - whether CIT (A) has erred in deciding the issue without remanding the matter to the AO for verification of additional evidence produced by the assessee u/s. 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962? - HELD THAT:- As submitted assessee had indeed filed additional details before the CIT (A) regarding the impugned work-in-progress for the first time in lower appellate proceedings only. We appreciate learned counsel’s fair statement and deem it appropriate to restore the Revenue’s instant second substantive ground back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh factual verification of the assessee’s relevant details as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. This Revenue’s appeal succeeds for statistical purposes. Issues Involved:Appeal by Revenue regarding additional evidence on work-in-progress and CIT(A) decision, Cross Objection by Assessee on tax effect.Analysis:Issue 1: Revenue's Appeal - Additional Evidence on Work-in-ProgressThe Revenue's appeal questioned the admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A) regarding work-in-progress (WIP) without factual verification as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The CIT(A) had deleted the WIP addition based on detailed discussions and submissions by both parties. The appellant was engaged in a contract business and had filed additional details during lower appellate proceedings. The AO had added the WIP amount to the total income, but the CIT(A) found merit in the appellant's claims. The appellant maintained that revenue was recognized only upon certification of RA bills. The AO's decision was based on incorrect facts, leading to the addition of WIP. The Tribunal ordered the Revenue's second ground to be sent back to the AO for factual verification, thus allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.Issue 2: Assessee's Cross Objection - Tax EffectThe assessee's cross objection raised the issue of tax effect related to the Revenue's appeal, which was not pressed during the hearing. As it was not pursued further, the cross objection was rejected accordingly.In conclusion, the Revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the Assessee's cross objection was dismissed due to the lack of pursuit during the hearing. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of factual verification in admitting additional evidence and ensured a fair hearing process for both parties. The judgment provided clarity on the treatment of work-in-progress in contract businesses and emphasized compliance with relevant tax rules and procedures.This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues raised in the judgment and outlines the Tribunal's decision on each matter, preserving the legal terminology and significant details from the original text.