AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 765
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e file perused. 3. The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-5, Pune has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.6,56,89,219/- on account of claim made to Samcon Infrastructure Corporation (SIC) by the assessee since it was clearly established that the assessee had executed the work SIC to the tune of Rs.6,56,89,219/-. 2. It is prayed that the order of Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-5, Pune be set aside and that of assessing officer be restored. 3. The appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal on or before the appeal is heard and disposed off." 4. We next note that the CIT(A)'s detailed discussio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh Govt. In the same year 20th Jan 2003 SSCPL entered in agreement for work order with M/a Samcon Infrastructure Corp. (known as "SIC") and SIC execution agent on behalf of SSCPL for lumpsum of Rs.15.90 crores. In the year 2003 April SIC and assesses entered into agreement for sub-contacting the work allocated to SIC by SSCPL. In the month of Dec. 2006 SIC abandoned the project work sub-contracted by SSCPL due to disputes among the parties and SSCPL blacklisted SIC and terminated the agreement entered with SIC. SSCPL approached assessee and made agreement with assessee on 1st Jan. 2007. Assessee stated in his letter that SSCPL raised various claims for additional amount on the Govt. of Madhya pradesh and same was r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessing Officer is correct and satisfactory. Hence, it is clearly escapement of income. An amount of Rs.6,56,89,219/- added in the hands of the assessee. Penalty proceeding U/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income initiated separately." 4.2. It is at this stage, the learned counsel raised his multiple arguments quoting Rule-27 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 that the Assessing Officer wrongly initiated sec.148/147 proceedings against the assessee after recording his reasons that the assessee's taxable income liable to be assessed had 'escaped assessment'. Learned counsel quoted hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision [2021] 436 ITR 616 (Bom.) Peter Vaz vs. CIT that assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all these pleas as per hon'ble jurisdictional high court's above stated decision. The same is not found to be applicable in the given peculiar facts and circumstances. 4.4. Learned counsel at this stage sought to refer to Rule 27 (supra) which are also not found as applicable once the CIT(A) had not "decided" any of these grounds against the assessee in the lower appellate proceedings. Faced with the situation, we adopt stricter interpretation as per Commissioner vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) to reject the assessee's instant legal arguments. 5. Learned counsel further argued that the Assessing Officer had not applied his independent mind before setting into motion sec.148/147 mechanism as it is evident from his reopen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial year 2007-08 so as to be assessed in assessment year 2008-09. 7. We find no merit in the assessee's instant arguments on merits as well. Suffice to say, it is an admitted fact that the assessee has nowhere declined the department's clinching stand all along that he had never disclosed the work in progress at all in his books through-out. The Assessing Officer's foregoing detailed discussion has also not invoked the so-called accrual principle which could be held to have been rightly appreciated in the CIT(A)'s impugned order. This is thus a clearcut instance wherein the impugned addition ought had been assessed as "unexplained" work in progress only. The question as to whether such a change in the head of income, if at all, could b....