TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 967
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he contract, responsible for its completion, submitting bills, receiving payments and making those payments to its members towards sub contract on which tax was deductible u/s.194C. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not considering that if the share of profit is determined in the Joint Venture Agreement, then it cannot be anything but AOP and where the charge is on the income of the AOP, in such status, the Assessing Officer has no choice but to tax it irrespective of the fact as to whether such share of profit has been offered to tax or taxed in the hands of members or not. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Achaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 and on the ruling of AAR in the case of Geo consultant ST GMBH in 304 ITR 283. 4) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any or all the grounds of appeal. 3. Shri Nikhil Pathak appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that the issue raised in the appeal is identical to the issue adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 665/PN/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10 decided on 11-04-2014 in assessee's own case. The ld. AR placed on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he first issue is regarding status of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has mentioned the status as firm. However, in the explanation given, the assessee has made it clear that the status in which the returns was filed was that of an AOP. It was explained that in the returns of income since beginning till the A.Y. 2006-07, the status was mentioned as AOP only, i.e., when the returns were filed manually. However, from A.Y. 2007-08, when electronic filing had to be done, due to computer error the status appeared as 'firm' on the ITR acknowledgement, whereas in the computation of total income, it was correctly mentioned as AOP. It was explained that I.T.Return Form No.5 was actually applicable for firms, AOPs and BOIs. Therefore, this error might have occurred. The assessee has also filed computation of total income alongwith acknowledgements from A.Y. 2002-03 to A.Y. 2006-07 in which the status was regularly shown as AOP and even in the application form for allotment of PAN it was shown as AOP. The CIT(A) noticed from the record that status was shown as AOP. However, it was not very much relevant for the purpose of applicability of provisions of section 194C since TDS provisions ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the contractor retains his share of profit alongwith the TDS and only the balance is passed on to sub-contractor. But in joint venture, assessees did not retain any share in the revenue with it and has passed the entire gross revenue alongwith TDS apportioned for them. It was submitted that the Department has also issued tax apportionment certificates every year during the past eight years to enable the two members to claim the TDS credits in their respective cases. Even in the current assessment year, it was noticed that tax apportionment certificate was issued by the Department vide letter No.Pn/Wd.3(4)/TC/07-08 dated 26.11.2008 of the Assessing Officer in which the Assessing Officer has allowed apportionment of entire TDS of Rs. 9,26,588/- during the year to M/s.Gammon India Ltd., since entire work during the year was carried out by it. Similarly, there has been apportionment to either of the two companies or to both the companies in the earlier years also by the Assessing Officer for enabling them to claim TDS in respective cases. The assessee, vide its submission dated 22.04.2010, furnished the details which revealed that gross revenue from this contract receipts by joint ve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting that the same method was being accepted by the Department in the past 8 to 10 years including A.Y. 2007-08 in which tax apportionment certificate was also being issued. It was contended that this aspect has not been considered in the assessment order u/s.143(3) for A.Y. 2007- 08. On the principle of consistency, the Ld. Authorised Representative relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit (2010) 228 CTR 582 (Bom.) and assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) wherein it was observed that strictly speaking the principle of res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings since each assessment year was a separate unit in itself and what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year. It was further contended that where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. It was also contended....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the AOP, but the taxability of income from such contract was held to be taxable in the hands of the respective contractors. While holding so Hon'ble Authority for Advance Ruling observed as follows: "7. So far as question Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned the parties have specifically ruled out constitution of any partnership between them. There is no sharing of profits or loss. They have specifically provided in the agreement that each party will bear its own loss and retain its profits as and when such profits or loss arise. Having regard to the agreement we are of the view that the applicant cannot be treated as a partnership which can only be created by an agreement. Nor can it be treated as an AOP. In order to constitute an AOP there will have to be common purpose or common action and the object of the association must be to produce income jointly. It is not enough that the persons receive the income jointly. In the instant case, each of the two parties has agreed to bear its own loss or retain its own profit separately. Both have agreed to execute the job together for better co-operation in their relationship with the Chennai Port Trust. The intention was not to carry out....