TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the Income-tax officer, Ward 1(3), New Delhi ('the learned AO') is based on surmises and conjectures and therefore, bad in law. ii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['learned CIT(A)'] has erred in upholding the order of learned AO, wherein the learned AO has made an addition of INR 2,62,51,181 on account of difference between the receipts as per Form 26AS and the audited financial statements of the appellant for the subject AY. iii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the learned AO without apprec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nting regularly followed by the Appellant and that any action of taxing such revenue during the subject AY shall amount of double taxation, which is clearly not permissible. vii. Without prejudice the ground 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in not allowing relief amounting to INR 53,92,010 being service tax, surcharge and education cess appearing in 26AS statement, despite the fact that the learned AO vide remand report dated April 9, 2015 agreed to the contention of the Appellant that said amount should have been added to total income of the Appellant. viii. Without prejudice to the ground 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 above, on the facts and in the circumst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the business of providing outdoor advertisements. The return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 30th September, 2011, declaring taxable income of Rs. 22,40,025/-. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny assessment under the CASS and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Incometax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") vide order dated 26th February, 2014, at a total income of Rs. 2,84,91,206/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 2,84,91,210/- on account of alleged difference in gross receipts declared and as per Form No. 26AS of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that as per ITR Data of AIR reflected in Form No. 26AS, the gross r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his amount against the sale bills raised by itself during the year. It is an admitted fact that the above concern is the sister concern of the appellant company. It is also an admitted fact that M/s Skyline Outdoor Media Pvt., has claimed the above amount in its account as revenue expenditure and claimed full deduction on account of expenses during this year itself and made TDS on above amount. The credit for the TDS so made has been claimed by the appellant company in its return of income without offering the above amount for tax. The appellant has argued that they have not offered this amount during the year as the agreement between the appellant company and its sister concern M/s Skyline Outdoor Media Pvt. Ltd. provides that while M/s Sk....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance if the amount is treated as income for the year under appeal, which it indeed is, The accounting policy or some self designed clause of an agreement cannot override the provision of law. The appellant has utterly failed to give justification for spreading over of income. In fact the appellant itself has raised the invoice for the full amount and there is no mention about any pending services being rendered, in future. This is clearly a colorable device adopted by the appellant in collusion with a group company where by the payment made by group company has been claimed as deduction entirely during the year itself but the appellant has not declared this amount as income for the year under consideration. In view of the above facts, I do ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-10, dated 31st March, 2015, held vide para 6 of the order that the information contained in Form No. 26AS cannot be itself the basis for making addition to the income returned. To the same effect, the decision of a coordinate bench of ITAT, Jabalpur, in the case of Ravindra Pratap Thareja Vs. ITO, 154 ITD 633. 6. We do not find any reason to differ from the reasoning given by the coordinate benches in the cases cited supra. The Assessing Officer is duty-bound to make independent inquiry as to whether income has accrued to the assessee company as per the method of accounting regularly being followed by the assessee in respect of the transactions reported in Form No. 26AS. The Assessing Officer, after due verification of the transactions wi....