AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 584
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At the outset we find that there is a delay in filing the appeal for 5 days. We have gone through the condonation petition filed by the assessee, we are convinced with the reasoning given thereon for the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The first preliminary ground raised by the assessee is as to whether the case was properly selected for scrutiny in accordance with the Scrutiny Guidelines prescribed by the CBDT vis-à-vis by obtaining proper approval thereon. 3.1. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 29.09.2011 declaring total in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned by the assessee. He also observed that during the appeal this ground was not pressed by the assessee and accordingly dismissed the ground of the assessee as not pressed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3.2. We have heard rival submissions. The ld. AR before us placed reliance on copies of various order sheet notings to argue that the ld. AO placed reliance on Central Action Plan Guidelines of CBDT issued for financial year 2012-13 and selected the case for scrutiny for assessment year 2011-12 manually, which according to him, was illegal and hence the entire assessment framed pursuant to such manual selection of case for scrutiny is liable to be quashed. We have gone through the entire assessment records. From the same,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r at the station is of the rank of Commissioner, approval in this regard shall be given by the Commissioner." From the above it is very clear that the assessee situated in mofussil station and assessed thereon would fall under the control of the Range Head of that station. It is not in dispute that the Additional CIT-Haldia is the Range Head of Haldia and accordingly the approval for manual selection of case for scrutiny given by ACIT-Haldia on 29.09.2012 is in order and consequentially the assessment framed thereon is not liable to be quashed as void ab initio. We also find that the financial year 2012-13 mentioned by the ld. AO in the order sheet appears to be only typographical error as admittedly the papers were indeed moved by him th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ture together with the VAT portion thereon in financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12. The ld. AO however did not agree to this contention and disallowed the same as explained not relatable to the year under consideration. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) for the same reason. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 4.2. We have heard rival submissions. At the outset we find that there is no dispute that the assessee had incurred this expenditure for the purpose of its business. It is not in dispute that the said expenditure together with the bill of M/s J & M Construction is not genuine. The only point that arises for consideration is that the said bills of M/s J & M Construction dated 24.12.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the addition made in the sum of Rs. 15,18,652/-, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.1. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is a civil contractor and was engaged in the business of civil construction including excavation and evacuation of dry fly ash from the site of West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. (WBPDCL) and Durgapur Projects Ltd. (DPL). The assessee company did not possess the requisite infrastructure to excavate and evacuate the dry fly ash from the Thermal Power Plant and accordingly sub-contracted the said work to various sub-contractors including M/s Elecon Engineering Company, M/s Novel Engineering and M/s M Construction. The assessee explained befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et and accordingly closing stock thereon should have been declared by the assessee. The assessee neither declared the asset nor declared the expenses recoverable from the sub-contractors. Accordingly, he upheld the action of the ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5.3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have gone though the statement raised by the concerned parties to the tune of Rs. 15,18,662/- towards administration charges which is enclosed in page 54 of the paper book filed before us. From the perusal of the said statement we find that opening stock as on 01.04.2010 was Rs. 2,06,70,213/- and bills raised during the financial year 2010- 11 was Rs. 6,32,538/- and amoun....