AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1232
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Total receipt Rs. 6,31,68,825/- (-) Rs. 15,85,573/- service tax paid) as per Annexure A-201. On perusal of profit and loss account, the assessee had offered only Rs. 5,81,89,973/- as income under the head Construction Receipts. The Commissioner of the Income-tax was of the view that the assessee was required to offer total receipts to the extent of Rs. 6,15,83,315/- instead of Rs. 5,81,89,937/-. Hence, the difference of Rs. 33,93,315/- should be added back to the total income. The Commissioner was of the view that the order of AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and hence show cause notice was given. In reply to show cause notice, the assessee contended that case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed the order u/s. 143(3), which is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The ld. Authorized Representative submitted that during the course of original assessment proceedings, the AO has issued notice dated 11.10.2012, which is on paper book page No. 44 required the assessee to furnish the reconciliation of contract receipt vis-a-vis shown in 26AS. The AO vide question No. 3 had categorically required the assessee to furnish application regarding difference of contract receipt as per TDS certificate and as per profit and loss account of the assessee. In reply to the notice the assessee furnished two separate statements. Reconciliation of contract receipts shown in the books of account vis-a-vis appearing in 26AS, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count vis-`-vis shown in 26AS. The Commissioner has issued show cause notice only on this count. Therefore, under the provisions of Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the powers of CIT(A) are quite wide and co-terminus with the powers of an AO and, therefore, even during the course of adjudication of the appeal, the CIT(A) may enhance the income of the assessee by making any further addition on this count. Therefore, in view of this legal position, there is no justification for CIT to assume the revisionary power u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. The ld. Authorized Representative further submitted that the reconciliation statements were submitted before the AO and ld. CIT. The assessee firm since its inception, has consisten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee has produced the copy of ledger account of M/s. Sahara Prime City Limited, M/s. Rajshree Plastiwood Private Limited. Copy of ledger account of contract receipt and copy of summary of contract receipt and copy of acknowledgement of return, wherein the assessee has shown the same as his income as the assessee has executed the contract and the difference of Rs. 13,40,437/- in respect of M/s. Sahara Prime City Limited, difference of Rs. 75,000/- in respect of M/s. Rajasthan Production Private Limited. The difference of Rs. 7,83,900/- in respect of contract work of M/s. Mahalay Engineering Components India Private Limited was shown and the discrepancy of Rs. 86,438/-, which was become a subject matter of addition before original assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 5.11.2012 and accordingly, the addition of Rs. 86,438/- was made to the total income of the assessee. The AO has verified the reconciliation statement and he was of the view that the only addition to be made is Rs. 86,438/-. The Commissioner of Income-tax after hearing the assessee was of the view that this requires verification at the end of the AO on the ground that the assessee has shown less receipt of Rs. 33,93,315/-. The assessee has contended before us that as per Section 194C, the assessee firm is engaged in business of carrying out civil construction work. The assessee is maintaining regular books of account in its ordinary course of business. The assessee firm consistently following the mercantile system of accounting. Under t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are of the view that the AO has taken one of the possible views and when the AO has taken one of the possible views, the ld. Commissioner had no power u/s. 263 to revise this order. We also find that the AO has made the addition of Rs. 86,438/- and that addition is challenged before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) had co-terminus powers with the AO and the ld. CIT(A) can also very well look into it. Therefore, for the same amount, there cannot be revision u/s. 263 of the Act. We find that similar issue had come up before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers, (2012) 341 ITR 0537 (Del), wherein it is held that power of suo motu revision exercisable by the CIT is undoubtedly supervisory in nature. The opening wor....