TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd on facts of the case. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the extent of Rs. 2,61,23,937/- without appreciating the facts of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in allowing relief without calling for evidences and relied only on the submissions of the assessee. 4. Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time of hearing. 2. The assessee also filed CO against the order of CIT(A) and the objections raised in CO are as under: "a. The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting relief with respect to Rs. 5,00,000/- added to the income of the assessee inspite of evidence of the advance being returned back by the assessee in the subsequent year. b. The learned CIT(A) erred in not gran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company, engaged in the business of trading in electrical equipment filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 27/10/2014 admitting total taxable income of Rs. 53,90,050/- and claimed a refund of Rs. 29,80,420/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served on the assessee. In response to the AR of the assessee furnished the information as called for. 3.1. From the Form 26AS, the A.O. observed that the total gross receipts of services received by the assessee were shown at Rs. 15,57,39,023/-, whereas, the assessee offered re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....difference of 26AS turnover with the reported turnover and made the addition, ignoring the fact that the appellant had reported certain turnover for which the TPS was deducted subsequently or in the previous year. Therefore, the addition made by the A.O. with regards to quantum was prima facie not in order. However, it remains to be seen as to whether the advance reflected in the balance sheet should be accounted as turnover for the year under consideration. The appellant gave the reconciliation with remarks of the advances outstanding in the balance sheet. The same along with the adjudication is discussed as under: The appellant had a total of advances from customer of Rs. 5,35,29,895/-, which need to be examined for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re us, the ld. DR filed written submissions wherein, inter-alia, it was stated as under: "As submitted during the course of hearing that CIT(A) has granted relief to assessee basing on submissions made by the assessee that income either already had been admitted in A.Yr. 2013-14 or will be admitted in A.Yr. 2015-16 without verifying underlying material and accounts of assessee company for concerned years, the following is brought to your kind consideration. As per department paper book page number 10 which is Reconciliation statement of 26AS receipts vis-a-vis. Amount admitted in books for A.Yr. 2013-14, assessee company claimed that-it has admitted Rs. 12,56,93,769/- in profit and loss account whereas total 26AS receipts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- only for the services and, thus, there was a difference of Rs. 2,79,32,398/- short admitted in the P & L Account. When questioned, the AR of the assessee stated that the difference of Rs. 2,79,32,398/- was mobilization advances received, which was not proved by way of documentary evidence before the A.O. The contention of the ld. DR before us is that without cross verifying with the accounts of the company, the CIT(A) accepted the submissions of the assessee company. Therefore, on considering the totality of the facts of the case, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the issue in disputed difference amount of Rs. 2,79,32,398/- to the file of the A.O. with a direction re-decide the impugned issue that when the assessee has offer....