ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s Gupta Sanitation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4906/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3436 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVINA SHA RMA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 4906 (DEL) OF 2015 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCHES : G NEW DELHI ] BEFORE HONBLE PRESIDENT SHRI G. D. AGARWAL A N D SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER. I. T. APPEAL NO. 4906 (DEL) OF 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER M/S. GUPTA SA NITATION PVT. LTD., OF INCOME TAX, VS. 2, PARK END, SEC OND FLOOR, CIRCLE : 10 (2), V I K A S M A R G, N E W D E L H I. N E W D E L H I 110 00 2. PAN : AAACG 3763 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VED JAIN, ADV.; & MS. DEVINA SHA RMA, ADV.; DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI, SR. D.R.; DATE OF HEARING : 19.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.02.2018 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)4, NEW DELHI, DATED 27.05.2015 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. I.T.A. NO. 4906 (DEL) OF 2015 2 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND :- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHETHE R THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.80,03,874/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RECEIPTS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES AND AMOUNT OF INCOME AS SHOWN IN THE P & L ACCOUNT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 198 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT S ARE TAKEN AS EXPENSES BY THE PAYERS. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECL ARING A LOSS. NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT]. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSM ENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE TOTAL RECEIPTS ON WHICH DE DUCTION WAS MADE WAS AT RS.25,41,94,130/- AND THE AMOUNT CREDITED TO PRO FIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS REVENUE RECEIPT WAS RS.24,61,90,256/-. ACCORDIN GLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE CALLING UPON THE EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE DIFFERENCE. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FINDING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE NOT ACCEPTABLE, M AINTAINED ADDITION OF RS.80,03,874/-. APART FROM THIS THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ALSO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CESSATION OF LIABILITY OF RS.1,89,624 /- AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW RATE OF PROFIT AT RS.42,34,751/-. A GAINST THIS THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL THEREBY, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF D IFFERENCE IN THE TAX DEDUCTED AND THE AMOUNT CREDITED INTO THE PROFIT AN D LOSS ACCOUNT. AGAINST THIS DELETION, THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED TH E PRESENT APPEAL. I.T.A. NO. 4906 (DEL) OF 2015 3 3.1 THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND AS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.80,03,874/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACC OUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RECEIPT AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE AND THE AMOUNT OF INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 3.2 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEH EMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. HE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. H E SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 198 OF THE ACT ARE CLEAR. 3.3 ON THE CONTRARY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) A ND ALSO FILED WRITTEN SYNOPSIS. THE SYNOPSIS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 27 TH MAY 2015, IN WHICH ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMOUNT APPEARING IN TDS CERTIFIC ATE AND IN AMOUNT SHOWN AS CONTRACT RECEIPTS IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS WAS D ELETED. 2. THE BRIEF OF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL AND CONSTRUCTION WORK AND FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2011-12 ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN DECLARING ITS TOTAL INCOME OF RS.79,16 ,230/- ON 21 ST SEPTEMBER 2011. (PB PG, 1-4) I.T.A. NO. 4906 (DEL) OF 2015 4 3. THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. A NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 11 TH SEPTEMBER 2012. 4. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSE E HAS SHOWN TOTAL RECEIPTS (ON WHICH TDS WAS DEDUCTED) AT RS.25,41,94,130/- (PB PG. 3-4), WHEREAS IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT TAXABLE RECEIPTS OF RS.23,98,69,041/-(PB PG . 9) HAS BEEN SHOWN AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIM THE TDS OF RS.51,55,320/- (PB PG.. 3-4) ON THE AMOUNT OF TDS DEDUCTED ON RECEIPTS OF RS.25,41,94,130/- 5. THE LEARNED AO VIDE NOTICE DATED. 19.08.2013 AS KED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF TDS DEDUCTED AND CORRESPONDING INCOME AN D WHICH WAS DULY COMPLIED WITH AND THE DETAILS ARE FILED ON 03.09.2013 (PB PG. 48A). IN THE SAID DETAIL, ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN PARTY-WISE DETAILS OF TDS CREDIT CLAIMED (TOTAL RS. 51,55,320), AMOUNT ON WHICH TDS CLAIMED (TOTAL RS. 25,41,94,130), CORRESPONDING INCOME (TOTAL RS. 23,98,69,041) AND THE AMOUNT CREDITED TO DEBTORS (TOTAL RS. 24,61,90,256) 6. THE LEARNED AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE TO THE ASSESSE E TO EXPLAIN WHY THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.80,03,874/- (RS. 24,61,90,256- RS. 25,41,94,130) SHALL NOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME UNDER CURRENT YEAR. 7. IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A REPLY D ATED 31 S * DECEMBER 2013 (PB PG. 52) IN WHICH HE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE DIFFER ENCE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ,S ON ACCOUNT OF THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE PAYMENT RECEIVED AS ADVANCE FROM THE DEDUCTOR. THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWS THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND REVENUE IS BOOKED ON RAISING AN INVO ICE TO THE PARTY. HOWEVER, THE DEDUCTOR DEDUCT TDS WHILE MAKING PAYMENT TO THE ASS ESSEE AND THUS ON THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCES ALSO TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED. THESE ADVAN CES ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE, THESE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMER ARE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE BILLS RAISED SUBSEQUENTLY. I.T.A. NO. 4906 (DEL) OF 2015 5 8. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE REPLY ALSO SUBMITTE D A COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES AS WELL AS AD JUSTMENT OF THESE ADVANCES. (PB PG. 53-61) 9. HOWEVER DISREGARDING ABOVE, THE LEARNED AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.80,03,874/- IN RESPECT OF ABOVE MENTIONED DIFFERENCE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ACCOUNT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS CLAIMING DEDUCTION FOR TDS FOR THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED AS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF THAT TDS CLAIM AN D THE INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN ALREADY RECEIVED NEED TO BE RECORDED EVEN AS PER TH E MERCANTILE BUSINESS OF ACCOUNTING (PG. 2 PARA 2) 10. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER AND THE LEARNED A O, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DE LETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO CONSIDERING THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT.. 11. FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARE GIVEN IN PARA 5.2.2 TO 5.2.6 PAGE NO. 10 ONWARDS OF HIS ORDER. 12. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS EXAMINED THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL IN RESPECT OF EACH PARTY AND HAS GIVEN A VERY CATEGORICAL AND REASONED FINDI NG. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CONTRACT INCOME FROM PART IES AND IN CASE OF MOST OF THE PARTIES THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY SHOWN MORE INCOME IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS PER THE INCOME AS PER TDS STATEMENT (PB PG.48A) AND SUCH DIFFERENCE IS AGGREGATE TO OVER RS.40,00,000/-. HE ALSO HELD THAT IN RESPEC T OF 3 PARTIES NAMELY PURI CONSTRUCTION LTD., INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD. AND S .M. SEHGAL FOUNDATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CONTRACT RECEIPTS WHICH INCLU DE ADVANCES OF RS. 1.2 CRORE. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COMPLETE DETAIL CHART BE FORE THE LD. AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT (A) SHOWING THE ACCOUNT ON WHICH THE TDS IS DED UCTED, AMOUNT OF TDS, AMOUNT I.T.A. NO. 4906 (DEL) OF 2015 6 CREDITED TO THE DEBTORS AND THE AMOUNT CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS WHICH IS PLACED ON PB PG. NO. 48A. 13. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING TO PRODUCE COPY OF AGREEMENT, CONTRACT, DATA SHEET, BE TWEEN THE VARIOUS CLIENTS AND THE ASSESSEE. 14. THE LEARNED CIT (A) PERSUED THESE AGREEMENTS A ND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TO RECEIVE UP FRONT MOBILIZATION ADVANCES WHICH IS 10 PER CENT OF THE CONTRACT VALUE WHICH IS THEN SPECIFICALLY ADJUSTED AGAINST THE CERTIFIED WORK AS PER THE INVOICE RAISED, WHICH AS PER THE AGREEMENT WILL BE ADJUSTED UP TO 15 PER CEN T OF A GROSS VALUE IN EACH RUNNING ACCOUNT VALUE. HE ALSO HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY IT WILL BE HELD AS ITS INCOME DEPENDING UPON THE STAGE OF COMPLETION OF WORK AS PER AGREEMENT AND THE SAME PR INCIPLE IS BEING CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO ADVERSE VIEW WAS TA KEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IN EARLIER YEARS AND THUS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. (COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER OF AY 2010-11 IS AT PB PG. 51) 15. LT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT IN PARA 5.2.6 THE LEARNED AO HAS WITHDRAWN THE CLAIM OF TDS IN RESPECT OF THE RELEVANT AMOUNT RECEIVED INCLUDING ADVANCES WHICH HAS BEEN HELD AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IN V IEW OF SECTION 194 (3) READ WITH RULE 37 BA. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS GIVEN FINDING OF FACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- I.T.A. NO. 4906 (DEL) OF 2015 7 5.2.2 VIDE GROUND NO. 4, THE APPELLANT HAS CHA LLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.80,03,874/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RECEIPTS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES AND AMOUNT OF INCOME AS SHOWN IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. T HE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT WERE DULY AUD ITED AND THE APPEIIANT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACC OUNTING SINCE EARLIER YEARS, IN WHICH THE SAME SYSTEM OF REVENUE RECOGNITION AND CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED, WHICH WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY T HE LD. AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD BROUGHT ON RECORD ALL RELEVANT MATERI AL AND EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS IN THE NATURE OF DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 5.2.3 THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE RECEIPTS RECORDED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT NEED NOT BE IN CONSONANCE WITH THE AMOUNTS CREDITED IN THE T DS CERTIFICATES, SINCE THE FIGURES REFLECTED IN TDS CERTIFICATES ONLY REFLECT THE AMOU NTS ON WHICH TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED, HOWEVER, THE SAME DOES NOT DENOTE THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT KEEPING IN VIEW THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY IT CONS ISTENTLY. THE LD. COUNSEL WAS ASKED BY ME TO FILE A NOTE ON REVENUE RECOGNITION FOLLOWE D BY THE COMPANY. IN RESPONSE., THE LD. COUNSEL FILED A BRIEF NOTE ON THE METHOD OF REVENUE RECOGNITION, AS UNDER; NOTE ON RE VENUE RECOGNI T I O N REVENUE FROM WORKS CONTRACT EXECUTED IS RECOGNIZED WHEN THE SIGNIFICANT RISKS AND REWARDS OF OWNERSHIP OF THE GOODS HAVE PASSED TO TH E BUYER WHICH COINCIDES WITH EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS TO THE CUSTOMERS. THE BILLI NG CYCLE IS AGREED AS PER THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT IE CONTRACT AWARD LETTER. THE MEASUREMEN T OF THE CONTRACT EXECUTED IS DONE (AS PER THE AGREED BILLING CYCLE) WITH THE CONTRACT EE AND THE BILL IS CERTIFIED BY THE ARCHITECT / PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS. THE RE VENUE IS RECOGNIZED ON THE BASIS OF BILLS CERTIFIED WRT WORK DONE BY THE CERTIFYING AGENCY IE ARCHITECT / PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS. I.T.A. NO. 4906 (DEL) OF 2015 8 THE PROCESS OF TREATMENT OF MOBILIZATION ADVANCE IS AS UNDER : 1. THE PROJECT IS AWARDED TO THE CONTRACTOR BY CONTRA CTEE EXECUTING CONTRACT AWARD LETTER 2. IN SOME OF THE CONTRACTS MOBILIZATION ADVANCE IS R ECEIVED FROM CONTRACTEES. 3. BILLING OF CONTRACT EXECUTED IS DONE AS PER AGREED BILLING CYCLE. 4. MEASUREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT EXECUTED DONE IN THE BILLING CYCLE ALONGWITH THE CONTRACTEE. 5. THE BILL CONTAINING MEASUREMENTS CERTIFIED BY THE ARCHITECH / PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS FOR PAYMENTS. 6. THE CERTIFIED BILL AMOUNT IS BOOKED AS REVENUE IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 7. THE PROPORTIONATE MOBILIZATION ADVANCE IS ADJUSTED AS PER AGREED TERMS AGAINST THE CERTIFIED BILL AMOUNT AND BALANCE PAYMENT BECOMES D UE FROM THE CONTRACTEE. 8. THE UNADJUSTED BALANCE OF MOBILISATION ADVANCE SHO WN IN THE BOOKS AS ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS.' 5.2.4 THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO FURNISHED A DETAILED C HART IN RESPECT OF AMOUNTS PAID ON WHICH DEDUCTION OF TDS WAS MADE. IT WAS OBSERVED TH AT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED CONTRACT INCOME FROM 10 PARTIES OUT OF WHICH IN RES PECT OF 7 PARTIES, THE APPELLANT HAD ACTUALLY SHOWN MORE INCOME IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AS CO MPARED TO THE INCOME AS PER TDS STATEMENTS, AND SUCH DIFFERENCES AGGREGATE TO O VER RS.40 LAKHS. WITH REGARD, THE OTHER 3 PARTIES NAMELY, PURI CONSTRUCTION LTD., INDIA HOTEL CO. LTD. AND S M SEHGAL FOUNDATION, THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED CONTRACT RECEIPT WHICH ALSO INCLUDE ADVANCES OF RS.1.20 CRORES. 5.2.5 THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO FILE BEFORE ME A COPY OF A RELEVANT AGREEMENTS ALONG WITH RELEVANT CONTRACT DATA SHEETS, BASED ON WHICH REVENUE RECOGNITION WAS DONE BY I.T.A. NO. 4906 (DEL) OF 2015 9 IT AS PER THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN VARIOUS CLIENTS OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS SEEN THAT THESE AGREEMENTS HAVE SIMILAR, WHICH SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT WAS TO RECEIVE UPFRONT MOBILIZATION ADVANCES EQUAL TO 10% OF THE C ONTRACT VALUE, WHICH IS THEN SPECIFICALLY ADJUSTED AGAINST THE CERTIFIED WORK AS PER INVOICE RAISED, WHICH AS PER THE AGREEMENT WILL BE ADJUSTED UP TO 15% OF A GROSS VALUE IN EACH RUNNING ACCOUNT VALUE. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT EACH STAGE OF COMPLETION OF WO RK IS CERTIFIED BY AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY AS PER THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE REVENUE HAS BEEN RE COGNIZED AT THE STAGE OF COMPLETION OF THE AGREED LEVEL OF WORK ONLY, WHEN THE AGREED PART OF MOBILIZATION ADVANCE HAS BEEN ADJUSTED, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT RECOGNIZ ED THE REVENUE AS PER THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING DEPENDING UPON THE EXTENT OF W ORK DONE, AS PER THE AGREEMENT. THE AO HAS DISREGARDED THE AGREEMENTS AND THE RELEVANT CONTRACT SHEETS AND ALSO THE INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED COMPLETION OF WORK BY THE IND EPENDENT AGENCY AND THEREBY, BROUGHT TO TAX EVEN THE MOBILIZATION ADVANCES, WHICH ARE RE CEIVED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE WORK HAD COMMENCED. THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE CIVI L CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, HENCE, THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY IT WILL BE HELD AS ITS INCOME D EPENDING UPON THE STAGE OF COMPLETION OF WORKS AS PER AGREEMENT. EVIDENTLY, IN CASE OF 7 CLI ENTS, THE APPELLANT HAD BOOKED MORE REVENUE THAN THE AMOUNT AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES, SI NCE IN SUCH CASES MOBILIZATION ADVANCE WAS RECEIVED IN THE EARLIER YEARS, WHEN TDS WAS DED UCTED THEREON, WHILE IN THE CURRENT YEAR, SUCH AMOUNTS OF ADVANCES WERE ADJUSTED AGAINS T THE CERTIFIED COMPLETION OF WORK, AND RECOGNIZED AS REVENUE ONLY DURING THE CURRENT Y EAR. ON THE SAME ANALOGY, THE MOBILIZATION ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE REMAINING 3 PARTIES DURING THE YEAR WILL BE ADJUSTED IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS DEPENDING UPON THE COM PLETION OF CERTIFIED WORK AS PER THE CERTIFICATION BY INDEPENDENT PARTY AND WILL BE RECOGNIZED AS REVENUE AS PER THE AGREEMENT FOR THIS PURPOSE. THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION OVER LAST 30 TO 35 YEARS AND THIS PRIN CIPLE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY IT AND NO ADVERSE VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OVE R SUCH A LONG PERIOD. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, I FIND NO INFIRMI TY IN THE ACCOUNTING TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE AO'S FINDING THAT T HE INCOME SHOULD BE .RECOGNIZED ON THE BASIS OF DEDUCTION OF TDS BY PAYER, IS NOT JUSTIFIA BLE. I.T.A. NO. 4906 (DEL) OF 2015 10 5. THE ABOVE FINDING OF FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE, THERE FORE, DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS ARRIVED AT BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). THE SAME IS HEREBY AFFIRMED AND THE GRO UND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS REJECTED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2018 . SD/- SD/- ( G. D. AGARWAL ) ( KUL BHARAT ) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : THE 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2018 . *MEHTA* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. APPELLANT; 2. RESPONDENT; 3. CIT; 4. CIT (APPEALS); 5. DR, ITAT, ND. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR