2022 (4) TMI 1395

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The Revenue seeks to urge the following question for consideration by this Court in assailing the above order of the ITAT: "Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to redo the assessment after verifying the valuation, made by the Assessee, of the Work in Progress (WIP) disclosed in its return of income and further, the profit element contained therein?" 3. The facts in brief are that the Respondent Assessee which is inter alia engaged in the construction of buildings filed its return of income for the AY in question disclosing an income of Rs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n behalf of the Assessee. The basic issue in the instant case is the valuation of work-in-progress (WIP) and profit element contained therein. In accordance with the accounting standard-7 which is mandatory for percentage completion method, the profit in respect of WIP has to be accepted as income. The Assessee's contention is that the same has been done so. This contention of the Assessee needs further verification and therefore the matter is set-aside and restored to the file of the AO for redoing the assessment after offering proper opportunity to the Assessee. While redoing the assessment, the AO is to verify the total income shown in the revised computation of income as well as the calculation of interest U/s.234C of the Act." 7. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department and Mr. A.K. Parija, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 11. Relying on the judgment of the Madras High Court in M/s. TTK LIG Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle III (2), (2012) 346 ITR 452, Mr. Satapathy submits that it was not incumbent on the CIT to have himself verified the submission of the Assessee before remanding the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment. According to him, it was sufficient that the CIT formed an opinion that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 12. Mr. Parija, learned Senior Counsel on the other hand, pointed out that after noting the submission of the Assesse....