GLA SHELL ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEM, MUMBAI V. ACIT 25(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7583/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78922 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Accommodation entries; Onus to prove
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BEN CH, MUMBAI JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH JKTSUNZZ JH JKTSUNZZ JH JKTSUNZZ JH JKTSUNZZ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA[;K / ITA NO.7583/MUM/2013 FU/KKZJ.K O'KZ @ ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2009-10 GLA SHELL ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEM 3A/16, TRIVENI NNP COLONY, PLOT NO. 6, GEN. A K VAIDYA MARG, GOREGAON (E), MUMBAI - 400067 VS. ACIT 25(3) C-11, 3 RD FLOOR, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI - 400067 PAN:-AAHFG4730C APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY / FU/KKZFJRH DH VKSJ LS FU/KKZFJRH DH VKSJ LS FU/KKZFJRH DH VKSJ LS FU/KKZFJRH DH VKSJ LS SHRI HITESH SHAH REVENUE BY/ JKTLO DH VKSJ LS JKTLO DH VKSJ LS JKTLO DH VKSJ LS JKTLO DH VKSJ LS SHRI MAURYA PRATAP ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2013 OF CIT FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISE D FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL:- GROUND 1:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) - 35 (,HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE CIT(A)') HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE IN RESPECT OF GENUINE PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. DATE OF HEARING 27.05.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.05.2014 GLA SHELL ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEM 2 | P A G E 24,05,035/- BY TREATING THEM AS NON- GENUINE PURCHASES. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOU NT OF NON-GENUINE PURCHASES BEING UNWANTED, UNWARRANTED, BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL BE DELETED. ALTERNATE GROUND NO : II :- GROUND II:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE EARLIER GROUNDS ALTERNATIVELY PRAYS THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO MAKE A FURTHER ADDITION BASED ON NET PROFIT MARGIN @ 10% OF THE ALLEDGED NON GENUINE PURCHASES IN VIEW OF NON VERIFIABILITY. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOU NT OF NON-GENUINE PURCHASES BEING UNWANTED, UNWARRANTED, BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL BE SUITA BLY REDUCED BASED IN NET PROFIT MARGIN SHOWN IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. GROUND III :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) - 35 (,HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE CIT(A)') HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUN TED SALES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 32,87,529/-. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOU NT OF UNDISCLOSED SALES UNWANTED, UNWARRANTED, BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL BE DELETED. 2. GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 IS REGARDING ADDITION ON ACCO UNT OF NON-GENUINE PURCHASES. GLA SHELL ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEM 3 | P A G E 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DEALING IN RE SALE, FIXING PROVIDING OF GLASS, ALUMINUM SECTION, REPAIRS OF GLASS DOORS, WINDOWS A ND UNDERTAKING CONTRACT FOR PROVIDING AND FIXING OF DOORS, WINDOWS ETC. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133(6) TO SOM E OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS ON RANDOM BASIS. THE NOTICE IN CASE OF M.S MAA CHAMUND A SALES PVT. LTD. AND N B ENTERPRISES WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL REMARKS AS NOT KNOWN. ACCORDINGLY THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE CORRECT ADDRESS OF TH E PARTIES AND ALSO SUBMIT SAMPLE BILLS OF THESE PARTIES. IN RESPONSE THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED COPY OF PURCHASE BILLS FROM THESE PARTIES. THE SAMPLE BILLS SUBMITT ED CONTAINED TIN NUMBERS OF THE VENDORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VERIFIED THESE PARTI ES FROM THE WEBSITE OF MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX DEPARTMENT WHEREIN THE NAME O F M/S N B ENTERPRISES HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY PUT UP AS HAWALA DEALER. IN CAS E OF M/S MAA CHAMUNDA SALES PVT. LTD., NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED BY THE AO FROM THE SAID PART. ACCORDINGLY THE AO TREATED THE PURCHASE FROM THESE TWO PARTIES AS BOGU S AND CONSEQUENTLY THE PURCHASES FROM THESE TWO PARTIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 4,05,035/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT(A) THAT THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THESE PARTIES WERE GENUINE AS THE GOODS WERE S UPPLIED BY THESE PARTIES AGAINST THE DULY ISSUED INVOICE. IT WAS FURTHER CON TENDED THAT AS PER THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX DEPARTMENT N B ENTERPRISES WAS NOT SHOWN AS HAWALA DEALER FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2009 AN D WAS ACTIVELY FILING SIX MONTHLY RETURNS IN TIME AND DULY PAID THE VAT. THE CONFIRMATION WAS ALSO FILED FROM M/S EXCELLENT ALUMINIUM CENTRE SAYING THAT THEY HA VE SUPPLIED MATERIALS TO THE ASSESSEE WORTH RS. 20,66,323/- ON BEHALF OF THE N B ENTERPRISES. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT AS REGARDS M/S MAA CHAMUNDA SALES PVT. LTD., THE ADDITION GLA SHELL ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEM 4 | P A G E HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED FROM THE SAID PARTY AND THE DEALER IS NOT TRACEABLE, WHICH IS FAC TUALLY NOT CORRECT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PARTY IS GENUINE AND THE SITE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA, SALES TAX DEPARTMENT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE PARTY W AS FILING SIX MONTHLY RETURNS IN TIME AND PAID THE REQUIRED VAT. THE CIT(A) ISSUED A REMAND ORDER AND AFTER RECEIVING THE REMAND REPORT HAS CONFIRMED THE DISAL LOWANCE/ADDITION MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS BASED ON SUSPICION AND NOT ON THE FIND ING OF FACTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL RELEVANT RECORDS INCLUDING CONFIRMATIO N AND ALSO PRODUCED THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT THESE PARTIES ARE GENUINE AS PER THE R ECORD OF GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA, SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, AS THEY ARE REGU LARLY FILING THEIR RETURN AND PAYING VAT. THE LD. AR FORCEFULLY CONTENDED THAT WH EN THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE CORRESPONDING SALES AND ASSESSED THE INCOME BAS ED ON THE CORRESPONDING SALES THEN THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PURCHASES ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ALTERNATIVELY THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED MORE THAN 10% INCOME ON THE SALES AND, THEREFORE, THE DI SALLOWANCE OF ENTIRE PURCHASES FROM THESE TWO PARTIES IS OTHERWISE NOT JUSTIFIED W HEN THE ASSESSEES NET PROFIT MARGIN IS MORE THAN THE PREVAILING MARGIN RATE IN T HE INDUSTRY. THUS THE LD. AR HAS PLEADED THAT THE AO COULD AT THE BEST HAVE MADE THE ADDITION BASED ON NET PROFIT MARGIN AT 10% OF THE ALLEGED NON-GENUINE PURCHASES IN VIEW OF NON VERIFIABILITY. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT TO THESE PAR TIES WERE MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND GOODS WERE DULY RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEE. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THA T IF THE SALE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED THE PURCHASE CANNOT BE TREATED AS NON GENUINE. THUS THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQ UE AND ALSO PRODUCED THE CONFIRMATION FROM THIRD PARTY WHO HAS SUPPLIED THE GOODS THEN THE DISALLOWANCE GLA SHELL ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEM 5 | P A G E MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIELD TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES FROM THE SE TWO PARTIES. ONE OF THESE PARTIES NAMELY M/S N B ENTERPRISES HAS BEEN NOTIFIE D BY THE MAHARASHTRA SALTES TAX DEPARTMENT AS HAWALA DEALER AND, THEREFORE, T HE PURCHASE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM M/S N B ENTERPRISES ARE NOTHING BUT ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WITHOUT REAL SUPPLY OF GOODS. AS REGARDS THE PURCHA SE FROM M/S MAA CHAMUNDA SALES PVT. LTD., THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUC E ANY RECORD IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM, THEREFORE, MERE PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE IS NO T SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS OF GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTION WHE N THE AO HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THE MATERIAL TO SUSPECT THESE TRANSACTIONS. DESPITE THE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS NOTHING HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THESE TRANSACTIONS. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAV E CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE PRIMARY ONUS I S ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. IN THE CASE IN HAND, T HE AO HAS ISSUED NOTICES U/S 136(6) TO THE CREDITORS, THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THESE TWO PARTIES NAMELY M/S N B ENTERPRISES AND M/S MAA CHAMUNDA SALES PVT. LTD REC EIVED BACK WITH THE POSTAL REMARK NOT KNOWN. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS I NCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF GENU INENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS FROM THESE PARTIES. THE AO HOWEVER VER IFIED THE STATUS OF THESE PARTIES FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND FOUND THAT M/S N B ENTERPRISES WAS NOTIFIED AS HAWALA DEALER WHO ISSUES BILL WITHOUT DELIVERY OF GOODS. THUS THERE WAS ENOUGH INFORMATION AND FACT C AME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AO TO DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. TH E ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE CONFIRMATION CERTIFICATE FROM A THIRD PARTY NAMELY M/S EXCELLENT ALUMINIUM CENTRE GLA SHELL ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEM 6 | P A G E WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE SUPPLIED THE GOODS ON BEHALF OF THE N B ENTERPRISES. THIS SHOWS THAT THE N B ENTERPRISES ITSELF HAS NOT SUPP LIED THE GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MATCH OF SUPPLY OF GOOD S AND THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO UNDERTAKING THE WORK OF FIXING DOORS AND WINDOWS AS WELL AS REPAIR WORKS AND, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF PURE TRADING OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE GOODS WITHOUT ANY VALUE AD DITION BY THE ASSESSEE AND CHARGES FOR OTHER SERVICES PROVIDED. THUS IN THE AB SENCE OF QUANTITATIVE RECONCILIATION OF THE PURCHASE AND THE GOODS USED IN THE EXECUTION WORK AS WELL AS SOLD IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MATCH THE PURCHASES AND SALES BECAUSE THE SALES OF THE ASSESSEE INVOLVES CONSUMPTION OF THE GOODS AS WELL AS THE WORK EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE CONTRACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS BY PRODUCTION OF ALL DETAILS IN T HE CHALLAN LIKE QUANTITY AND NATURE OF GOODS SUPPLIED UNDER THE CHALLAN. FURTHER THE MO DE OF TRANSPORTATION AND PROOF OF TRANSPORT OF THE GOODS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD DESPITE DUE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS AS WELL AS IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEW OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE BE EN MAKING PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENE SS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WHEN THE AO HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S TO INDICAE THE NON GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO PARTIES. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER S OF AUTHORITIES BELOW QUA THIS ISSUE. 8. THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 2 THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 10% OF THE ALLEGED NON-GENUINE PURCHA SES CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE THE PURCHASE IN QUESTION HAS THE IMPACT OF FULL VALUE ON THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY DEFLATING THE PROFIT TO THAT EXTENT AND , THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF TAKING ANY PERCENTAGE OF PURCHASES TREATED AS NON-G ENUINE. 9. GROUND NO. 3 IS REGARDING ADDITION IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 32,87,529/-.. DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO GLA SHELL ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEM 7 | P A G E ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE AIR RECONCILIATION STATEMENT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT VIDE LETTER DATED 15.12.2011. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACCOUNTED A SUM OF RS. 32 ,87,529/- AS SALES THOUGH THE AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED. OUT OF RS. 32,87,529/ - A SUM OF RS. 29,89,000/- WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S SUBURBAN DEVELOPERS . THE ASSESSE E FILED THE LEDGER FROM M/S SUBURBAN DEVELOPERS AND CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE WO RK HAS NOT BEEN EXECUTED AND THE OTHER PARTY HAS MADE THE ENTRY BASED ON TH E PROFORMA INVOICES, THEREFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED AS SALES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESS EE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 32,87,529/- AS UNACCOUNTED SALES. 10. ON APPEAL, CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MA DE BY AO, HOWEVER THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO VERIFY WHETHER THE SAID AMOUNTS IN RESPECT OF M/S SUBURBAN DEVELOPERS HAS NOT BEEN CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE A.Y. 2010-11THEREBY GIVING RELIEF IN THIS ACCOUNT. 11. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT OUT OF THE FOUR PARTIES A SUM OF RS. 2,91,481/- NOT RECEIVED FROM M /S DOSTI CORPORATION TILL DATE, THEREFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT CANNOT BE ADDED AS UNACC OUNTED SALES AND EVEN ALTERNATIVELY ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT OF THE SALES CAN BE ADDED TO THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS M/S SUBURBAN DEVELOPERS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 28 ,89,900/- HAS BEEN ADDED BY THE AO WHEREAS THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN ACCOUNTE D AS SALES IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2010-11, THERE FORE, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE ON THE ENTIRE SALE AMOUNT BUT THE PROFIT ELEME NT IN THE SALE CAN BE ADDED. THE LD. AR HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE WORK WAS EXECUTED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECOGNIZED THE SA LE ONLY IN THE NEXT YEAR. IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER TWO PARTIES THERE MAY BE MISTA KE IN THE AIR INFORMATION BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BOOKED THE TDS OF THES E AMOUNTS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE OF M/S DOSTI CORPORATION THE AMOUNT PERTAINS TO THE EXCESS BILL BOOKED BY THE SUPPLIER AND THE ASSESEE HAS REC EIVED THE AMOUNT OF OUTSTANDING GLA SHELL ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEM 8 | P A G E BILL ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF WORK DONE BY IT AND, THE REFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT DUE FROM THE SAID PARTY. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON THE O RDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND RE LEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCO UNT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES IN RESPECT OF THE SALE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING FOUR PAR TIES ;- NAME OF THE PARTY AS PER ASSESSEES BOOK RECEIPT AS PER ITD UNACCOUNTED 1 2 3 4 DOSTI CORPORATION 11,46,174 14,37,655 2,91,481 SUBURBAN DEVELOPERS 11,50,000 41,39,000 29,89,000 FREEDA HOME MAKERS PVT. LTD. 2,93,202 3,00,000 6,79 8 PRIMO REALTORS PVT. LTD. 29,99,750 30,00,000 250 TOTAL 55,89,126 88,76,655 32,87,529 14. THE ABOVE DISCREPANCY WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AS PER THE AIR INFORMATION. THE CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 29,89,000 HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS SALES BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD VERIFY AND CONSID ER THE SAME. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS AMOUNT IS ONLY AN ADVANCE RECEI VED AND WORK WAS EXECUTED ONLY IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THEREFORE, THIS AMOUNT CANNOT BE TREATED AS SALES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS RECOGNIZED THIS SALE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT THAT WORK HAS BEEN EXECUTED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR THEN THIS AMOU NT CANNOT BE TREATED AS SALES OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. A CCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THIS FACT AND THEN ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IF FOUND GLA SHELL ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEM 9 | P A G E CORRECT. AS REGARDS THE OTHER AMOUNTS THOUGH THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT RECONCILE THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE AIR INFORMATION AND BOOK ENTRIES, HOWEVER THE ENTIRE UNACCOUNTED SALE CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE AND ONLY THE PROFIT MARGIN INVOLVED IN THE SALE CAN BE TREATED A S INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE ADDIT ION ONLY TO THE PROFIT MARGIN OF THE SALES TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED SALES. 15. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED.. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY I.E 3 0-05-2014 SD/- SD/- ( RAJENDRA ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER/ YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER/ U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; ) MUMBAI DATED 30 -05-2014 SKS SR. P.S, COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, J BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI