2021 (2) TMI 1106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law: "i. Whether the Tribunal was right in remanding the issue back for verification of inflated expenditure for the assessment year 2011-12 while allowing relief for another assessment year 2010-11 when the facts are similar on the same issue without there being any change in the circumstances for both the assessment years ? And ii. Whether the inflated expenditure admitted by the assessee is to be allowed despite the fact that the assessee could not reconcile the statements nor could prove the same with supporting documentary evidence?" 3. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Limited for a value of Rs. 10,26,80,000/-. The Assessing Officer found this to be a discrepancy namely the value of the sub-contract work was higher than the value of the work awarded to the assessee by the said M/s.Marg Limited. The assessee was called upon to explain the same. It appears that the assessee did not produce any document to reconcile the discrepancy and therefore, the Assessing Officer held that the genuineness of the expenditure claimed under the cost of operation for Rs. 9,88,56,012/-, out of which, the expenditure pertaining to the said M/s.Coastal Projects Private Limited was for a sum of Rs. 9,63,25,478/- was unable to be proved by the assessee. Hence, the Assessing Officer held that apart from Rs. 6 Crores, which was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ltd., and the area of the contract work sub-contracted was higher than the area which has been taken on contract by the assessee from M/s.Marg Ltd. A perusal of the work order dated 02.2.2010 tallies with that of the assessment order but a copy of the invoice raised by M/s.Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd., clearly shows that the area to be approximately 9 lakhs sq. mtrs. which is less than the area 10,20,408 sq. mtrs. contracted by the assessee. This being so, it cannot be said that the sub-contract given by the assessee to M/s.Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd., is not genuine or that it is not proved. A perusal of the sub-contract as also the invoice clearly shows that the area is an estimated quantity only. This being so, we find no reason to disallo....