SHRI SURESH DEWAN HUF, Jaipur V. DCIT, Sikar

ITA 32/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78115 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D C SHARMA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Assessment record
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH: JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. MEENA) I.T.A. NO. 32/JP/2012 ASSTT. YEAR- 2007-08 PAN NO. AAJHS 0378 E SURESH DEWAN HUF, THE D.C.I.T., V&P PATAN, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, VRS. CIRCLE- SIKAR. DISTRICT- SIKAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO. 130/JP/2012 ASSTT. YEAR- 2007-08 PAN NO. AAJHS 0378 E THE D.C.I.T., SURESH DEWAN HUF, CIRCLE- SIKAR. VRS. V&P PATAN, TEHSIL NEEM KA THAN A, DISTRICT- SIKAR. ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI SATISH GUPTA. DEPARTMENT BY :- SHRI D.C. SHARMA. DATE OF HEARING : 09/07/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/07/2014 O R D E R PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. THE ITA NO. 32/JP/2012 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS CROSS APPEAL NO. 130/JP/2012 BY THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 02/11/2011 OF THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A)-III, JAIPUR FOR THE A.Y. 2007- 08. THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDE R:- 2 GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 32/JP/2012 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE NET PROFIT R ATE OF 4.14% AS AGAINST 3.50 DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE N.P. ON THE BASIS OF COMPARABLE CASE WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESS EE AND WITHOUT FOLLOWING ASSESSEES OWN PAST HISTORY. GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 130/JP/2012 (I) THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED A PERVERSE ORDER BY ADOPTI NG THE N.P. RATE OF THE SISTER CONCERN, EVEN WHEN IT WAS NEI THER COMPARABLE NOR WERE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SIMI LAR TO THAT OF THE ASSESSEE CONCERN AND THUS ERRED IN DELE TING THE TRADING ADDITION. (II) THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED A PERVERSE ORDER BY IGNOR ING THE FACT THAT THE CREDIT OF TDS CAN BE GIVEN ONLY TO THE PARTY IN WHOSE NAME THE TDS CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN ISSUED. (III) THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED A PERVERSE ORDER IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS. 60,620/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMAT ED N.P. AT 5% BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 44AF OF KIRANA BUSINESS. (IV) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY HOLDING THAT THE MISC I NCOME OF RS. 5,60,062/- WAS INCLUDED IN THE NET PROFIT DISCLO SED BY THE APPELLANT, ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSEE ALONE, AND 3 WITHOUT VERIFYING IT HIMSELF/DIRECTING ITS VERIFICAT ION BY THE A.O. (V) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, WITHDRAW OR INSERT ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST REJECTION OF BOOK RESULTS, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. GROUNDS NO. 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND GROUNDS NO. 1,3 AND 4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE AGAINST CONFIRMING NE T PROFIT @ 4.14% AS AGAINST 3.5% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE S MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME IS BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY WORK ON CONT RACT WITH HEAD OFFICE AT PATAN (SIKAR) AND BRANCHES AT SHILLONG, IMPHAL AND SRIGANGANAGAR. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN NET PROFIT @ 3.5% ON TOTAL RECEIPT S FROM CONTRACT. IN ASSESSEE SISTER CONCERN OF SHRI MANOJ DEWAN DURING S AME TYPE OF CONTRACT WORK UNDER SIMILAR CONDITIONS, HAD DECLARED NET PROF IT @ 4.14% FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEE, NET PROFIT OF ASSESSEE FROM CONTRACT BUSI NESS WAS ESTIMATED @ 5% OF GROSS RECEIPT OF RS. 15,65,98,069/- SUBJECT TO F URTHER DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION. BESIDES THE CONSTRUCTION WORK, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE TRADING BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF SHRI SURESH DEWAN AN D SONS. IN TRADING BUSINESS OF KIRANA AND GENERAL ITEMS, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GROSS SALE OF 4 RS. 44,55,922/- WITH G.P. OF RS. 9,10,646/- AND N.P. OF RS. 1,28,555/-. IF INTEREST ON FDR AMOUNTING TO RS. 50,014/- IS REDUCE D FROM N.P., THE NET PROFIT IS REMAINED RS. 78,541/-, THUS DECLARED G.P. AND N. P. RATES WERE 20.4% AND 1.76% RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE REASO NABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH WAS RESPONDED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN CONTRACT BUSINESS N.P. HAD INCREASED AS COMPARED TO EARLIER YEAR BUT NO REASONS FOR LOW RATE OF PROFIT WAS GIVEN IN RESPECT OF KIRANA BUSINESS. IN A.Y. 2005-06 THE APP ELLANT HAD SHOWN N.P. RATE @ 4.29% ON GROSS SALE OF RS. 1,12,44,088/-. AFTER CO NSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED N.P. RATE @ 5% ON SALE OF RS. 44,55,922/-. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 78,29,903/- IN CONTRACT BUSINESS AND RS. 2,22,796/- IN KIRANA BUSINESS. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A ). THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL PARTIALLY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- HOWEVER, WHILE ESTIMATING THE INCOME/NET PROFIT OF T HE APPELLANT, THE A.O. HAS ESTIMATED THE SAME @ 5% OF THE TOTAL TU RNOVER, WHEREAS HE HAS ALSO GIVEN THE REFERENCE OF THE NET P ROFIT DECLARED @ 4.14%, BY THE SISTER CONCERN OF THE APPELLANT I.E. OF SH. MANOJ DEEWAN (BROTHER OF THE APPELLANT), WHO IS INVOLVED I N EXACTLY SIMILAR BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IT IS NOTED THAT THE A.O . HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON OR JUSTIFICATION FOR ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT AT 5% AS SUCH, THE SAME IS TERMED AS HYPOTHETICAL AND IMAGIN ARY IN NATURE, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE UPHELD UNDER THE GIVEN CIRCUMS TANCES. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT AFTER THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS, THERE CAN 5 BE TWO BASIS OF ESTIMATION OF THE REVISED PROFIT RAT IO I.E. EITHER FOLLOWING THE PAST HISTORY OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD OR TO ADOPT THE PROFIT RATION SHOWN BY ANY COMPARABLE CASE , AS SUCH. SINCE, EVEN IN THE PAST THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE F OUND REJECTED U/S 145(3), THEREFORE, SUCH CRITERION IS NOT FOUND AS A VALID PROPOSITION UNDER THE GIVEN SITUATION, ESPECIALLY WH EN A COMPARABLE CASE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PRESENT MATTER. REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SAME, THE COURTS HAVE UPHELD T HAT WHILE ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT U/S 145(3) OF THE IT ACT, TRADING RESULTS OF THE COMPARABLE CASES, TO THE APPELLANT CASE, WOUL D BE A JUST BASE TO ENSURE A PROPER ESTIMATION IN THIS REGARD. THE RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I. NEW PLAZA RESTAURANT 309 ITR 259 (H.P.) II. PAWAN KUMAR 316 ITR 324 (P&H) III SMT. RAJ BALA 50 DTR 80 (P&H) CONSIDERING THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION, IT IS UPHELD THAT THE ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT U/S 145(3), IN THE PRESENT CASE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN @ 4.14%, IN VIEW OF THE NET PROFIT RESULT SHOWN BY THE COMPARABLE CASE, AS DISCUSSED BY THE A.O.. ACCORDIN GLY, THE A.O. IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTED THE TRADING ADDITI ON, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DIRECTION AND GRANT THE REQUISITE RELI EF IN THIS REGARD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, THUS, PARTLY UPHELD. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US AND CHALLENGED THE PAR TIAL ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE THAT TOTAL TURNOVER HAS INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION. NET PROFIT RATE ALSO INCREASED FROM 2.95% IN A.Y. 2005-06, 3.1 5% IN A.Y. 2006-07 TO 3.5% IN A.Y. 2007-08. ACCORDINGLY, THE NET PROFIT A LSO INCREASED ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER. THE HONBLE ITAT HAS DEICED THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 1611/JP/2008 AND 23/J P/2009 AND HELD THAT 6 3.15% NET PROFIT, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LEA RNED CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED. IT MEANS THE DISCLOSED NET PROFIT HAS BE EN ACCEPTED BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) PARTIALLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY COMPARING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF SISTER CONCERN. NEITHER THE CASE IS COMPARABLE NOR IS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASES ARE SIMILAR. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF KANSARA BEARING PVT. LTD. VS. CIT 270 ITR 235 (RAJ), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HE LD THAT LAST YEARS PROFITS ARE THE BEST GUIDE FOR APPLICATION OF PROFIT RATE. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE COMPARING THE CASE OF SISTER CONCERN, NO OPP ORTUNITY HAD PROVIDED. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED TO FOLLOW THE HONBLE ITATS O RDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 6. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE IT ATS ORDER DATED 21/8/2009 IN ITA NO. 1611/JP/2008 FOR A.Y. 2006-07. THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD AS UNDER:- AS REGARDS THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME, THERE IS NO C OMPARABLE CASE ON RECORD AND THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED NET PROFIT RATE OF 2.77%, 2.46% AND 2.95% FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04, 2 004-05 AND 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 3.15% DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR WHICH ARE BETTER 7 AS COMPARED TO THREE PRECEDING YEARS. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED BETTER TURNOVER OF RS. 10.21 CRORES DU RING THE IMPUGNED YEAR AS COMPARED TO RS. 4.97 CRORES, RS. 5.78 CRORES AND RS. 6.69 CRORES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-0 4, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY. THEREFORE, IN SUCH CIRCUMS TANCES AND FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE DECISION OF HONB LE JURISDICTRIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GO TAN LIME KHANIJ UDYOG, 256 ITR 243, EVEN IF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAV E BEEN REJECTED, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. THEREFORE, WE F IND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY D ELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS THE SOL ITARY GROUND OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE SOLITARY GROUND OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE COORDINAT E BENCH ON ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN PRECEDING YEAR, WHERE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS SUCH, ON INCREASED TURNOVER DURING THE YEAR, THE NET PROFIT RATE INCREASED AS WELL AS GROSS RECEIPTS HAVE GONE UP. THE REFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INCREASE THE RATE OF NET PROFIT IN AS SESSEES OWN CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE NET PROFIT RATE DECLARED BY THE AS SESSEE @ 3.5% IS ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED AND REVENUES GROUND OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 8. REVENUES GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAINST GIVING CREDIT OF TDS. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE 8 WERE LESS THAN THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER FORM NO. 1 6A (TDS CERTIFICATE). THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD TO THIS ISSUE, WHICH WAS AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 4 /12/2009 AND IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS ACCOUNTED THE RECEIPTS ON THE BASIS OF MERCANTILE SYSTEM WHEREAS TDS CERTIFICATES WERE ISSUE D ON CASH BASIS. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT DURING THE P RECEDING YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCOUNTED IN HIS BOOKS MORE RECEIPTS THAN SHOWN IN THE TDS CERTIFICATES FOR THAT YEAR AND AS A RESULT RECEIPTS ALREADY ACCO UNTED IN PRECEDING YEAR, WERE NOT ACCOUNTED DURING THE YEAR. THE EXPLANATION THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE MORE THAN AS COMPARED TO THE RECEIPTS SHOWN IN TDS CERTIFICATES FOR THAT YEAR IS VERIFIABLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD OF PRECEDING YEAR. HOWEVER, THERE IS ANOTHER REASON FOR THE EXCESS RECEIPTS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES THEN RECEIPT S ACCOUNTED BY THE ASSESSEE. PERUSAL OF TDS CERTIFICATES FILED BY THE A SSESSEE SHOWED THAT FORM NO. 16A ISSUED BY FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES HAD DIFFEREN T PAN (AAVFS6851R) AND AS SUCH RECEIPTS AS WELL AS THE TDS AMOUNT SHOWN THERE IN DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE AS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. S.NO. AUTHORITY AMOUNT 1. ENGINEERING PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED, KOLKATA RS . 5,22,76,865/- 2. ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER, SHILLONG RS. 1,08,81,2 97/- TOTAL RS. 6,31,58,162/- 9 CREDIT FOR TDS ON THESE RECEIPTS WAS NOT ALLOWED TO A SSESSEE AS PER ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT DATED 26/8/2009. ACCORDINGLY, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, THESE RECEIPTS OF RS. 6,31,58,162/-, WHICH DO NOT PERTAIN TO ASSESSEE, GROSS RECEIPTS DECLARED BY ASSESSEE ARE TAKEN AS ACTUAL GROSS REC EIPTS OF THE YEAR. HOWEVER, SINCE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS. 6,31,58,162/- DO NOT PE RTAIN TO ASSESSEE AND THESE RECEIPTS ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE GROS S RECEIPTS OF ASSESSEE, CREDIT FOR TDS PERTAINING TO THESE RECEIPTS CANNOT B E GIVEN AS IS DONE IN ORDER U/S 154 DATED 26/8/2009. 9. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN GROUND NO. 2. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE LEARNED CIT(A ) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE RIVAL STANDS OF THE A.O. AND THE LEARNED A.R. TAKEN IN THIS REGARDS. THE BASIC CONTROVERSY IN THIS REGARD IN THAT WHETHER THE TURNOVER OF RS. 6,31,58,162/-, PERTAININ G TO THE ABOVE TWO AUTHORITIES AND RESPECTIVE TDS CERTIFICATES BELONG TO APPELLANT OR NOT. AS PER THE A.O., SINCE THE PAN NO. MENTIONED IN THE TDS CERTIFICATES ARE RELATED TO THE THIRD PARTY THEREFORE THE CREDIT THE REOF CANNOT BE GIVEN IN THE APPELLANT CASE AND HE ALSO PRESUMED THAT THE CO RRESPONDING TURNOVER IS ALSO NOT REFLECTED IN THE GROSS RECEIPT S OF THE APPELLANT. WHEREAS, THE LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE PROJECTS WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT ONLY AND CORRESPONDING RECEIPTS HAVE ALSO BEEN REFLECTED EITHER IN THE PRECIOUS YEAR OR IN CU RRENT YEAR BY THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, IN THE TDS, THE CONCERNED AUTHOR ITIES HAVE 10 INADVERTENTLY MENTIONED THE PAN NO. OF THE ERSTWHILE PARTNERSHIP CONCERN, I.E. M/S SHREE MEGHALAYA CONSTRUCTION & SU PPLY CO., WHEREIN THE APPELLANT WAS A PARTNER. IN THE CURRENT YEAR THE SAME HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE APPELLA NT WITH SAME NAME BUT WITH DIFFERENT PAN NO.. REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS AND AS REFLECTED IN TDS CERTIFICATE, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THIS HAD HAPPENED DUE TO THE REASON THAT IN THE BOOKS THE RECEIPTS ARE RECORDED ON MERCANTILE BASIS WHEREA S IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE THE SAME ARE SHOWN ON CASH/PAYMENT BASIS . IN THIS REGARD HE SUBMITTED THE CERTIFICATE FORM THE CONCERNED AUTHOR ITIES AND ALSO RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNTS TO SHO WN THAT THE ENTIRE CONTRACT RECEIPTS, AS REFLECTED IN THE TDS CERTIFIC ATES, HAVE BEEN DULY OFFERED FOR THE TAX, IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. SINCE SUCH DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION AMOUNTED TO AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES U/S 46A OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE SAME WERE FORWARDED TO THE A.O. F OR HIS COMMENTS AND VERIFICATION, IN THIS REGARD. THE A.O. VIDE HIS SUBMISSIONS DATED 07/6/2011 AND 08/9/2011, HAS INFORMED THAT AFTER VE RIFICATION THE ABOVE CLAIMS OF THE APPELLANT ARE FOUND IN ORDER. THE RELE VANT PARA OF THE LETTER DATED 08/9/2011 OF THE A.O. IS BEING REPRODU CED AS UNDER:- IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE SUBMITTED THE DETAILED RECONCILIATION AND EXPLANATION OF PER DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE AND GROSS REC EIPTS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE SAME HAVE BEEN DULY VERIFIED. IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT TDS IS BEING DEDUCTED BY THE DEDUCTOR AT THE TIME OF AC TUAL PAYMENT AND NOT AT THE TIME OF THE BILLS BEING RECEIVED. THEREFORE, WH ILE THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CREDITS THE GROSS RECEIPTS AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTING THE BILLS, THE TDS IS DEDUCTED ONLY AT THE TIME OF RECEIPTS OF PAY MENT. IN CASES WHERE THE SUBMISSION OF BILLS FALLS IN ONE FINANCIAL YEAR AND THE RECEIPTS OF PAYMENT IS IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR, THERE ARISES A DIFFE RENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS 11 RECEIPTS AS PER BOOKS AND GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE. IN THE INSTANT CASE SUCH SITUATION HAS PREVAILED AT THE BEGINNING OF FINANCIAL YEAR AND AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR ALSO. IN THE RECONCILIATI ON SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THE PARTICULAR AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND NEC ESSARY ADDITION OR SUBTRACTION AS REQUIRED HAS BEEN MADE TO ARRIVE AT RECONCILED FIGURE OF GROSS RECEIPTS. THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE AMOUNT ADD ED OR SUBTRACTED HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED ALONGWITH THE RECONCILIATION. THE SA ME HAVE BEEN VERIFIED AND FOUND TO BE IN ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSI TION, IT IS HELD THE IMPUGNED TURNOVER OF RS. 6,31,58,162/- OF THE ABOVE TWO CONCERNS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLAN T, THEREFORE, THE CREDIT OF THE RESPECTIVE TDS CERTIFICATES HAVE TO BE GIVEN IN HIS CASE ONLY. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEALS IS HEREBY UPHE LD. 10. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND THE L EARNED D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WHEREAS THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE RECONCILIA TION OF TDS CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO HAS CA LLED REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS ACCEPTED THE RECONCILI ATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT ON TH IS ISSUE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD PASSED THE ORDER AND ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS ALLOWED. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WHEN ALL THE EXERCI SES OF RECONCILIATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE REMAND REPORT HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS VERIFIED THE RECONCILI ATION STATEMENT OF TDS 12 CREDIT AS WELL AS CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND WAS FOUND TO BE IN ORDER, THEREFORE, WE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISS UE. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/07/2014. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR, DATED : 25 TH JULY, 2014 * RANJAN COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. SURESH DEWAN HUF, SIKAR. 2. THE D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-SIKAR. 3. THE CIT (A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE D/R GUARD FILE (I.T.A. NO. 32/JP/2012) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.