TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1325
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act) for assessment year 2006-07. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi (Crr (A) for short) erred in holding that the learned DOT , Circle-17(1), New Delhi (AO) had correctly assumed jurisdiction u/s 148 read Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act for the sake of brevity). 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) erred in holding that the Assessment Order was not barred by limitation mandated by the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. 3. That without prejudice to the grounds of appeal no. 1 & 2 above, CIT(A) erred in h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment and by claiming wrong deductions, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment." 4. Thereafter, the ld. Assessing Officer held that there was a difference of total amount of Rs.13,07,560/-, the compact receipt shown in the profit and loss account and Form 26AS and held that there was a bill which was raised in the next year, therefore, he added the difference of Rs.13,07,560/- as income of the assessee. 5. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the said addition and also the validity of re-opening under Section 148 of the Act, relying upon the decision of Consolidated Photo Finvest Limited 281 ITR 394 (D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax. As per the Ld. AR the difference in the income arises on account of mobilisation advance received from the party agaisnt which TDS credit has been taken in the year under consideration. When TDS credit has been taken then the corresponding income should have been offered this year only. Therefore, I find AO's action is correct in adding Rs.13,07,560/- in this year only. In view of the fact stated the ground no, 2 is dismissed." 6. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, first of all, from a bare perusal of the reasons recorded, it is seen that nowhere the Assessing Officer has demonstrated what was the failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, beca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is that the Assessing Officer had issued notice under Section 154 of the Act presumably on this point only on 21.01.2013, wherein he has again raised this issue as the gross contract receipts of the assessee as appearing in Form 26AS which was at Rs.10,38,85,610/- as against Rs.10,25,78,041/- shown in the accounts of the assessee. Thus, it was mentioned in the notice, there was an understatement of Rs.13,07,560/-. Again in response to the said show-cause notice assessee had filed a detailed reply before the Assessing Officer and also filed reconciliation statement vide letter dated 18.02.2013. Thereafter no action was taken by the Assessing Officer. 8. Ld. Counsel further submitted that, now on the same point again, the assessment has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd nor any information that a sum of Rs.13,07,560/- has escaped assessment. As noted above, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had filed the duly explained the difference in response to the query raised by the Assessing Officer on same point and assessee had filed the reconciliation statement based and TDS certificate and also the contract receipt shown in the books of accounts. It was demonstrated that there was certain mistake in the TDS certificate due to wrong inclusion of reimbursement of service tax. There was TDS deduction taken on a gross amount including service tax which was included in the TDS certificate. All those reconciliations were filed before the Assessing Officer during the course of the original as....