TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (10) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting the sum of Rs. 1,16,921 and Rs. 51,844 being the amounts due to the assessee in respect of Godawari Barrage Works and Musi Bridge Works, respectively, for the assessment year 1974-75? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting a sum of Rs. 57,927 being the amount due to the assessee in respect of the Musi Bridge Works for the assessment year 1975-76?" For the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee filed a return claiming loss of Rs. 22,371 under the head "Business" without taking into consideration the depreciation and development rate and disclosing income of Rs. 36,368 under the head "Other sources". In doing so, the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner directed deletion of both the amounts. For the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee had filed a return disclosing the income of Rs. 4,69,095 made up of Rs. 4,16,502 being the business income and Rs. 52,593 being the income assessable under the head "Other sources". But, on March 16, 1976, a revised return was filed disclosing "nil" income. The Income-tax Officer passed an order dated March 16, 1976, computing the business loss as Rs. 83,498 and the income assessable under the head "Other sources" as Rs. 52,593 and after setting off the latter against the former determining the total loss as Rs. 30,905. On the assessee's appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the assessee's contention that the sum of Rs. 57,927 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu [1964] 53 ITR 114 (SC). Regarding the sum of Rs. 51,844 also the Tribunal noticed that the Government of Andhra Pradesh did not agree with the claim of the assessee and the dispute was before the High Court. The Tribunal held that the amount cannot be said to have accrued to the assessee during this accounting year. Regarding the sum of Rs. 57,927 in the year 1975-76 which is the correct figure, the Tribunal found that this claim is similar to the claim of Rs. 51,844 relating to the assessment year 1974-75. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Before us, learned standing counsel for the Department submitted that inasmuch as the assessee had done its work and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill be applicable only in respect of the work carried out and which is mentioned in the award. In respect of the work done after the award was passed, it is the contention of the Government of Andhra Pradesh that the terms of the award will not apply. It is the plea of the assessee that the principle laid down by Shri P. V. Rao in his award dated November 22, 1973, will equally apply to the work done even after the passing of the award and hence based on principles formulated by him, they made a claim for an extra amount of Rs. 1,16,921 with the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the work done after the award and till March 31, 1974. This was also only in the realm of claim in the previous year ending on March 31, 1974. The Government of Andh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication of the soil where the work was carried out. The assessee claimed payment at a uniform rate in respect of the excavation done in rocky regions. The Government of Andhra Pradesh was of the view that even when rock is encountered such rocky region will have to be accepted in different categories and different rates will have to be paid. According to the assessee, they are entitled to Rs. 51,844 and this was claimed from the Government, who did not accept this. The assessee, thereafter, went to the High Court on this issue. Therefore, the fact remains that the assessee did not get the right to receive this amount of Rs. 51,844 and hence it cannot be said that this amount has accrued to the assessee in the assessment year 1974-75. Theref....