TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equently reopened by issuing notice under Sec.148 of the Act on 10.5.2011. During the course of examination of books of account, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee offered an amount of Rs. 36,09,65,844 as sub-contract receipts and an amount of Rs. 21,11,500 towards interest receipts, but as per the TDS certificates, pertaining to the period from 1.4.2007 to 31.5.2008, the subcontract receipts work out to Rs. 46,96,09,360. According to the Assessing Officer, the difference between subcontract receipts offered in the return of income and the amount reflected as per the TDS certificates amounting to Rs. 10,86,43,546 was not offered to tax and therefore, is liable to be added. The assessee submitted that the gross receipts a per th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, the CIT(A) proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex-parte -qua the assessee- whereby he confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 4. On further appeal filed by the assessee company, the ITAT, vide its order dated 19.12.2014 noticed that the assessee filed a petition under S.154 of the Act furnishing copies of running account details and other documents for reconciling the difference between the sub-contract receipts shown by the assessee and as per the TDS certificates; and in the circumstances, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in disposing of the appeal ex-parte. Accordingly, the matter was set aside to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to him to grant reasonable opportunity to the assessee and re-decide the appeal accordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngly deleted the addition. 6. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us, contending inter alia that the CIT(A)-4 erred in admitting additional evidence without recording any reasons about the sufficiency of the cause with the assessee for not providing the said evidence before the Assessing Officer, and thus, it is in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. It was further contended that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of the assessee of non-taxability of the alleged advance payments without simultaneously rejecting the claim of credit of TDS in contravention of the provisions of Section 199 of the I.T. Act, 1961 as applicable during Financial Year 2007-08 relevant to Assessment Year 2008-09 which mandate that credit of TDS shall be g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me-tax, Range 16 and not before the jurisdictional assessing officer, and therefore, the said application is not on record of the Assessing Officer, and therefore, cannot be proceeded with, in which event the learned CIT(A) could not have relied upon the documents filed alongwith the petition under S.154, other than by seeking permission to admit the additional evidence, which was not the case here. She thus strongly supported the stand taken by the Revenue. 9. On other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that receiving section for receipt of tapals of DCIT/ACIT and Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax is centralized, and it is for them to forward the same to concerned officer or to maintain separate receivi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich clearly indicate that the gross receipts as per the TDS certificates cannot be taken as final gross turnover, as accepted by the Assessing Officer in the earlier years, there was no need for the learned CIT(A) to give detailed reasons in this regard. He thus strongly supported the order passed by the learned CIT(A). 10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. During the course of hearing, we have called for the assessment record and also called upon the Learned CITDepartmental Representative to explain the procedure to be followed when an application under S.154 is filed in the tapal section ad also brought to the notice of the learned CIT-DR the provisions of S.154(8) of the Act, which states that a....