AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 29.12.2015. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition made on account of undisclosed contract receipts made by the AO ignoring the fact that contract receipts as per TDS certificate was not disclosed in its return of income for the A.Y 2013-14 even though corresponding TDS were claimed against the tax credit for the year under consideration? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition made on account of undisclosed contract receipts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee has offered the contract receipts less by Rs.77,97,614/-. In this case, the Pr.CIT, Surat has provided an opportunity of being heard to offer explanation, if any from assessee by issuing notice on 05.01.2018. However, assessee has failed to avail the same. Nobody was attended or no reply was filed by the assessee. In response to the second opportunity provided to the assessee on 20.03.2018 by the Ld. PCIT, Surat-1 the assessee has submitted a reply wherein the assessee has reconciled the difference noticed in the contract receipts which is reproduced as below: 4. Therefore, AO has issued notice to the assessee under section 142(1) of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted its reply dated 24.11.2018, before the AO. The AO af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. Learned DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. However, ld Counsel for the assessee defended the order passed by the ld CIT(A). We note that during the appellate proceedings, assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.46,32,928/- made by the AO on account of difference in contract amount as per 26AS and the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2,46,47,940/- (TDS on this amount only), the assessee had accounted for Rs.3,38,77,499/-. The outstanding amount of A.Y. 2012-13 paid by M/s Anjali Developers along with current A.Y. contract amount was subjected to TDS on payment basis leading to the confusion regarding the treatment of contract receipts. 7. Based on these facts and after going through the break- up of sales turnover of assessment year 2012-13, the ld CIT(A) noted that assessee had already credited receipts of Rs.3,38,77,499/- in the return of income (ROI) and Profit and Loss account of A.Y. 2012-13, even though form 26AS TDS deduction indicated receipt of Rs.2,46,47,940/- from M/s. Anjali Developers. Thus, the outstanding payment, of A.Y. 2012-13 subjected to TDS on pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of incorrect assuming of contract amount from form no. 26AS, as undisclosed contract income. In the assessment order, the AO took total contract receipts of Rs.5,35,77,554/- as per form 26AS of current A.Y. 2013-14. On the other hand, the assessee has shown that the total contract amount as per form 26AS comes to Rs.5,15,77,554/- only and thus, there was arithmetical mistake on the part of AO in making addition of Rs.20,00,000/- ( Rs.5,35,77,554- Rs.5,15,77,554). Therefore, ld CIT(A), considering the facts from 26AS, noted that total receipt as per form 26AS of current AY is only Rs.5,15,77,554/- Hence, the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- was deleted by ld CIT(A). This way, ld CIT(A) deleted the total impugned addition of Rs.77,97,614/- (Rs.46,3....