TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. The only issue grievance of the assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act as erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a limited company and engaged in the business of providing Dredger and other Infrastructure facilities. The Ld. PCIT on examination of assessment records observed that the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting. As per the TDS certificate, the income of Rs. 3,95,72,000/- was reflecting from the party namely M/s Shivam construction against which the amount of TDS of Rs. 7,91,440/- was deducted. However, the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the above, it was contended by the assessee that the income from M/s Shivam Construction was already suffered to tax in the earlier AY and therefore it cannot be said that the income of the assessee has been under assessed. 4. However, the Ld. PCIT disagreed with the contention of the assessee by observing as under: 6.1 In its reply, the assessee mainly contended that the difference is because of the reason that the receipts from M/s.Shivam Constructions has been shown in two F.Y i.e 2011-12 and F.Y 2012-13. However, since, M/s.Shivam Construction had deposited total TDS amounting to Rs 7.91,440/. deducted on amount of Rs. 3,95,72,000/- during the A.Y 2013-14. the total credit of Rs. 3,95,72,000/ was reflected in 26AS for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....explanation has been submitted. Even in the submission given in the present still the discrepancy of Rs. 13,71,061/-remained to be explained. 6.2. Assessee also failed to submit any specific reply whatsoever on the points raised in the above referred notice u/s 263. Being it a complete scrutiny. A.O. was required to examine the veracity of TDS credit claimed with its nexus to the income offered in his return, which was not done by the Assessing Officer Thus, the A.O. has failed to carry out inquiry or verification in respect of receipts not shown as per 26AS details, for making a just and fair assessment of income of the assessee. 7 The Assessing Officer has, therefore, incorrectly accepted the facts submitted by the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clared in two different AYs as demonstrated by the ld. AR for the assessee. As such, on aggregation of income of the assessee from M/s Shivam Construction in 2 different AYs i.e. 2012- 13 and 2013-14, it is transpired that the assessee has shown excess income by Rs. 13,17,061/- as evident from the reconciliation statement filed by the assessee before the Ld. PCIT which is reproduced somewhere in the preceding paragraph. 9.1 In this regard, we also note that the Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Engineering Co. vs CIT reported in 2017(3) TMI 383 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee which is reproduced as under: 2017 (3) TMI 383 ITAT AHMEDABAD Gujarat Engineering Co. Versus Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Vadodara and Gujar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Section 263 cannot be justified. Decided in favour of assessee. 9.2 Be that as it may be, what we find from the preceding discussion is this that the veracity of the contention raised by the assessee before the Ld. PCIT has nowhere been verified either by the AO during the assessment proceedings or by the Ld. PCIT and accordingly no finding is thereon of such contention of the ld. AR. 9.3 Furthermore, we have also referred to the reply made by the assessee in response to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, placed on pages 31 to 32 of the paper book, we find that the AO has not enquired the aspect highlighted by the Ld. PCIT in his order during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, it appears to us that the AO in the given case....