ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR V. M/S SHRI BALAJI BUILDERS, ALWAR

ITA 869/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2746 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; TDS
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HE-A JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRA M SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 869/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR CUKE VS. SHRI BALAJI BUILDERS, 1/43, RHB COLONY, BHIWADI, DISTT. ALWAR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABHFS5311G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT IZR;K{KSI.K @ C.O. NO. 05/JP/2018 (ARISING OUT OF VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 869/JP/2017) FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 SHRI BALAJI BUILDERS, 1/43, RHB COLONY, BHIWADI, DISTT. ALWAR CUKE VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABHFS5311G IZR;K{KSID@ OBJECTOR IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI J. C. KULHARI (JCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 26/11/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25/02/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 13.09.2017 AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. IN ITA NO. 869/JP/17, THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ITA NO. 869/JP/2017 & CO NO. 05/JP/2018 THE ACIT, ALWAR VS. M/S SHRI BALAJI BUILDERS, ALWA R 2 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,49,73,29 0/- TO RS. 51,91,097/- ONLY MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED RECEI PTS WITHOUT APPRECIATION THE MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. IN CROSS OBJECTION NO. 5/JP/18, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 51,91,097/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENC E IN RECEIPTS SHOWN IN FORM NO. 26AS AND RECEIPTS SHOWN IN BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS BY NOT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT DIFFERENCE IS ON AC COUNT OF DOUBLE TDS DEDUCTED BY M/S MAHINDRA UGINE SYSTEM LTD. 4. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AS SESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. THE ORIGINAL ASSESS MENT WAS COMPLETED ON 31.03.2014 AT INCOME OF RS.3,52,86,880/-. THEREAFTE R, THE LD CIT PASSED AN ORDER U/S 263 ON 14.03.2016 FOR THE REASON THAT THE RE IS VARIATION OF THE RECEIPT FROM JOB WORK AND INTEREST SHOWN IN THE P&L A/C VIS --VIS THAT APPEARING IN FORM NO.26AS AND THE ORDER PASSED BY AO WAS SET ASI DE WITH A DIRECTION TO PROPERLY EXAMINE THIS ISSUE. 5. IN THE SET-ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED A RECONCILIATION STATEMENT BETWEEN THE RECEIPT FROM JOB WORK AS SHOW N IN THE P&L A/C AT RS.63,53,86,890/- AND THAT REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS A T RS.68,66,53,910/-. THE VARIATION OF RS.5,12,67,020/- WAS EXPLAINED ON ACCO UNT OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- (A) AMOUNT OF SERVICE TAX INCLUDED IN THE RECEIPT A S PER FORM 26AS- RS.2,16,70,623/- (B) DEBIT NOTE ISSUED BY GREENPLY INDUSTRIES- RS. 41,45,291/- ITA NO. 869/JP/2017 & CO NO. 05/JP/2018 THE ACIT, ALWAR VS. M/S SHRI BALAJI BUILDERS, ALWA R 3 (C) MOBILIZATION ADVANCE FROM PARTIES ON WHICH TDS DEDUCTED- - RECKITT BENCHKISER INDIA LTD.- RS. 55,00,000/- - ALPHA INDIA LTD.- RS.21,61,458/- - EMAMI INDIA LTD.- RS.75,13,431 /- -SPIROTECH HEAT EXCHANGERS PVT. LTD.- RS.25,83, 590/- RS.1,77,58,479/- (D) DOUBLE DEDUCTION - SHRIRAM PISTON & RINGS LTD.- RS.25,0 0,000/- - MAHINDRA UGINE SYSTEM LTD.- RS.51,91, 097/- RS. 76,91,097/- (E) MISCELLANEOUS DIFFERENCE- RS. 1,530/- TOTAL RS.5,12,67,020/- 6. THE AO ACCEPTED THE DIFFERENCE ON ACCOUNT OF SER VICE TAX AT RS.2,16,70,623/-, MOBILIZATION ADVANCE OF ALPHA IND IA LTD. AT RS.21,24,106/- AND DOUBLE DEDUCTION MADE BY SHRIRAM PISTON & RINGS LTD. AT RS.25,00,000/-, AGGREGATING TO RS.2,62,94,729/-. HOWEVER, FOR THE R EMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.2,49,72,291/- (5,12,67,020-2,62,94,729), HE OBSE RVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DIFFERENT VERSION IN REPLY DT. 29.06.2016 AND 14.12.2016 AND THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE GIVEN VIDE LETTER DT. 1 4.12.2016 IS NOT AUTHENTIC AND RELIABLE. ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.2 ,49,73,290/- (CORRECT AMOUNT SHOULD BE RS.2,49,72,291/-). 7. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDE NCES ON RECORD ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF MOBILIZATION ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM RECKITT BENCHKISER INDIA LTD. (RS.55 LACS), EMAMI INDIA LTD. (RS.75,13,431/-), SPIROTECH HEAT EXCHANGERS PV T. LTD. (RS.25,83,590/-), AGGREGATING TO RS.1,55,97,021/- AND ON ACCOUNT OF D EBIT NOTE OF RS.41,45,291/- ISSUED BY GREENPLY INDUSTRIES, THUS, ALLOWING THE R ELIEF OF RS.1,97,42,312/-. HOWEVER, HE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.51,91,097/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DOUBLE DEDUCTION BY MAHINDRA UGINE SYSTEM LTD. FOR THE REA SON THAT NO SUPPORTING ITA NO. 869/JP/2017 & CO NO. 05/JP/2018 THE ACIT, ALWAR VS. M/S SHRI BALAJI BUILDERS, ALWA R 4 EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED. AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A), BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THE MATTER AND RELIE D ON THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TAKEN US THROUGH THE FIND INGS OF THE AO WHICH WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE AND ARE NOT REPEATED FOR SAKE OF B REVITY. 9. PER CONTRA, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT RECEIPT AS PER FORM 26AS SHOULD ALWAYS MATCH WITH THE RECEIPT DECLARED IN THE P&L A/C. THERE MAY BE VARIOUS REASONS FOR SUCH DIFFERENCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR SUCH DIFFERENCES INITIALLY VIDE LET TER DT. 29.06.2016 BUT ON FURTHER VERIFICATION, ASSESSEE FOUND THAT THE REASO N FOR SUCH DIFFERENCE GIVEN VIDE LETTER DT. 29.06.2016 IS NOT CORRECT AND THERE FORE, VIDE LETTER DT. 14.12.2016, HE FURNISHED THE CORRECT REASONS FOR SU CH DIFFERENCE SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE AO ACCEPTED THE EXPLANAT ION ONLY IN RESPECT OF THOSE DIFFERENCE WHERE THE REASONS GIVEN VIDE LETTE R DT. 29.06.2016 AND 14.12.2016 ARE SAME. HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANAT ION FOR THE REMAINING DIFFERENCE SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DT. 14.12.2016 BY STATING THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THIS LETTER IS NOT AUTHENTIC AND RELIABLE. THERE IS NO BASIS WITH THE AO TO COME TO THIS CONCLUSION. 10. THE LD AR FURTHER DRAWN OUR REFERENCE TO THE EX PLANATION GIVEN FOR THE INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY TH E AO BUT LATER ON ACCEPTED BY LD. CIT(A) AS UNDER:- DEBIT NOTE BY GREENPLY INDUSTRIES- RS.41,45,291/- DURING THE YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY W ORK FOR GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LTD. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE JOB WORK FOR GRE ENPLY INDUSTRIES LTD. IN FY ITA NO. 869/JP/2017 & CO NO. 05/JP/2018 THE ACIT, ALWAR VS. M/S SHRI BALAJI BUILDERS, ALWA R 5 2010-11 AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.98,00,222/- WAS DUE FRO M THIS COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE ON 01.04.2011. AGAINST THIS AMOUNT PART PA YMENT WAS MADE BY GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LTD. DURING THE YEAR AND A DEBI T NOTE OF RS.41,45,291/- WAS RAISED BY THEM FOR DEFICIENCY IN WORK WHICH IS CREDITED TO THEIR ACCOUNT BY DEBITING TO THE JOB WORK ACCOUNT. THIS IS EVIDENT F ROM THE DEBIT NOTE RAISED BY GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LTD. AND COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT PLACED AT PB 22 & 23. THE DEBIT NOTE WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS BY DEBITING THE JOB WORK ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE, THE TOTAL RECEIPT FROM JOB W ORK HAS REDUCED BY THIS AMOUNT VIS--VIS THE RECEIPT REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS . THUS, THE REASON FOR VARIATION TO THIS EXTENT IS FULLY EXPLAINED AND RIG HTLY ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). MOBILIZATION ADVANCE FROM RECKITT BENCHKISER INDIA LTD.- RS.55 LACS THIS COMPANY HAS AWARDED A CONTRACT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 06.01.2012 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,82,72,946/- (PB 24-27). AS PER CONDI TION NO.14, IT WAS TO PROVIDE A MOBILIZATION ADVANCE OF 10%. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE RECEIVED AN ADVANCE OF RS.55 LACS FROM THIS COMPANY VIDE CHEQUE DT. 27.02.2012 AFTER FURNISHING BANK GUARANTEE DT. 08.02.2012 OF THE SIM ILAR AMOUNT. ALL THESE FACTS ARE VERIFIABLE FROM THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, COPY OF BANK GUARANTEE AND THE CHEQUE PAY MENT VOUCHER OF THE COMPANY (PB 33). THUS, ON MOBILIZATION ADVANCE, TAX IS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BUT THE SAME IS NOT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY AO ON THIS ACCOUNT IS RIGHTLY DELETED BY LD . CIT(A). MOBILIZATION ADVANCE FROM EMAMI INDIA LTD.- RS.75,1 3,431/- THIS COMPANY AWARDED THE WORK ON 01.07.2011 FOR RS. 4,94,61,885/-. AS PER CONDITION NO.5 IT IS TO PROVIDE MOBILIZATION ADVANC E OF 10% OF THE CONTRACT VALUE ON FURNISHING THE BANK GUARANTEE WHICH IS TO BE RECOVERED FROM 3 RD RA ITA NO. 869/JP/2017 & CO NO. 05/JP/2018 THE ACIT, ALWAR VS. M/S SHRI BALAJI BUILDERS, ALWA R 6 ONWARDS @ 12% OF THE GROSS AMOUNT OF RA BILLS. ACCO RDINGLY, ASSESSEE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.48,47,264/- ON 26.07.2011 AFTER DEDUCTING TDS OF RS.98,924/- ON THE GROSS AMOUNT OF RS.49,46,188/- A FTER FURNISHING THE BANK GUARANTEE (PB 29-43). THUS, ON MOBILIZATION ADVANCE , TAX IS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BUT THE SAME IS NOT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY AO ON THIS ACCOUNT IS RIGHTLY DELE TED BY LD. CIT(A). MOBILIZATION ADVANCE FROM SPIROTECH HEAT EXCHANGERS PVT. LTD.- RS.25,83,590/- THIS COMPANY AWARDED WORK ON 01.08.2011 FOR RS.9,24 ,67,805/-. AS PER PARA 2 OF THE WORK ORDER IT IS TO PROVIDE RS.51 LACS AS MO BILIZATION ADVANCE NET OF TDS (GROSS AMOUNT RS.52,04,082, LESS TDS RS.1,04,082= R S.51 LACS) UPON FURNISHING THE BANK GUARANTEE. THE ADVANCE WAS TO B E RECOVERED FROM THE RUNNING BILLS ON PRO RATA BASIS. DURING THE YEAR RU NNING BILL OF RS.4,89,45,611/- WAS RAISED WHEREAS AS PER FORM 26AS AMOUNT RECEIVED IS RS.5,15,29,200/-. THIS COMPRISES OF ADVANCE OF RS.52,04,082/- AND RS. 4,63,25,118/- AGAINST THE RUNNING BILL OF RS.4,89,45,611/-. THUS, MOBILIZATIO N ADVANCE IS RECOVERED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.26,20,493/- (4,89,45,611- 4,63,25,118) . THUS, AT THE YEAR END MOBILIZATION ADVANCE REMAINED OUTSTANDING AT RS.25, 83,589/- (52,04,082- ,26,20,493) ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BUT THE SAME WAS NOT THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR. THIS IS ALSO EVIDE NT FROM FORM 26AS ACCORDING TO WHICH AMOUNT PAID/ CREDITED IS RS.5,15,29,200/- WHEREAS THE BILL RAISED AND CREDITED TO THE JOB WORK IS RS.4,89,45,611/- RESULT ING INTO DIFFERENCE OF RS.25,83,589/-. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY AO ON T HIS ACCOUNT IS RIGHTLY DELETED BY LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,97,82 ,193/-. ITA NO. 869/JP/2017 & CO NO. 05/JP/2018 THE ACIT, ALWAR VS. M/S SHRI BALAJI BUILDERS, ALWA R 7 11. REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.51,91,097/- CONFIRMED BY BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED ITS CROSS-OBJECTION, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT THE SAME IS ON ACCO UNT OF DOUBLE DEDUCTION OF TDS MADE BY MAHINDRA UGINE SYSTEM LTD. FROM THIS CO MPANY, ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS.2,46,46,798/- AGAINST RA BILLS RAISED F OR RS.2,27,69,795/-. AS AGAINST THIS FORM NO.26AS SHOWS THAT THE COMPANY HA S PAID/ CREDITED RS.3,08,24,834/- TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DIFFERENCE HA S ARISEN BECAUSE ASSESSEE RECEIVED PAYMENT OF RS.45,30,816/- (35,18,644+10,12 ,172) IN THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2011 AGAINST 9 TH TO 11 TH RA BILL. AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT THE COMPANY DEDUCTED TDS OF RS.93,059/- AND ON ACCOUNT OF MATER IAL SUPPLY AT RS.29,080/- ON THE GROSS AMOUNT OF RS.46,52,955/-. THEREAFTER A T THE TIME OF PASSING THE BILLS FOR RS.85,91,645/- (16,94,477+9,00,917+12,40, 788+47,55,463), TAX WAS AGAIN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WITHOUT ADJUSTING THE EARL IER PAYMENT OF RS.46,52,995/-. NOW THE COMPANY HAS GIVEN A CERTIFI CATE TO THIS EFFECT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO GOT VERIFIED THE RECEIPT FROM THI S COMPANY FROM THE BANK STATEMENT IN WHICH NO DISCREPANCY IS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED BUT NOW IN VIEW OF THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE COMPANY, THE ADDITION OF RS.51,91,097/- MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. REGARDING MOBILIZATION ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM RECKITT BENCHKISER INDIA LTD., EMAMI INDIA LTD., SPIROTECH HEAT EXCHAN GERS PVT. LTD. AGGREGATING TO RS.1,55,97,021/-, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THOUGH THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR, THE SAME IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ADVA NCE IS ADJUSTED FROM THE SUBSEQUENT RUNNING BILLS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND BASED ON THE RUNNING BILLS, THE REVENUES HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE FINANCI AL STATEMENTS AND ITA NO. 869/JP/2017 & CO NO. 05/JP/2018 THE ACIT, ALWAR VS. M/S SHRI BALAJI BUILDERS, ALWA R 8 CORRESPONDINGLY OFFERED TO TAX IN THE SUBSEQUENT FI NANCIAL YEARS. IN OUR VIEW, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING A CONSISTENT ACCOUN TING POLICY WHEREBY THE REVENUES HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR BASED ON PERCENTAG E OF WORK COMPLETED AND SUCH MOBILSATION ADVANCE HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TA X AS PART OF THE CONTRACT REVENUES OVER THE PERIOD OF CONTRACT, THERE IS NO B ASIS TO DISTURB THE SAME MERELY BECAUSE IN FORM 26AS, THE MOBILIZATION ADVAN CE HAS BEEN REFLECTED AND TDS HAS BEEN DONE THEREON. RECEIPT OF ADVANCE PER SE FOR EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT CANNOT BE CHARACTERIZED AND BROUGHT TO TAX AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. UNLESS AND UNTIL THE ASSESSEE FULFIL LS THE CORRESPONDING WORK OBLIGATIONS AND A DEBT BECOME DUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE STATED THAT INCOME HAS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. FU RTHER, MERE REFLECTION IN FORM 26AS IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE REAL CHARACTE R AND/OR TAXABILITY OF A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION. WHAT HAS TO BE EXAMINED IS THE NATURE OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS ON PERUSAL OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION AND H OW THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. IN LIGH T OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET-ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF RECOGNITION OF CONTRACT REVENUES AND WHE RE IT IS SO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING A CONSISTENT ACCOUNTING POLIC Y WHEREBY THE REVENUES HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF WORK COMP LETED AND SUCH MOBILSATION ADVANCE HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX AS PART OF THE CONTRACT REVENUES OVER THE PERIOD OF CONTRACT, THE IMPUNGED ADDITIONS IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 13. REGARDING DEBIT NOTE RAISED BY GREENPLY INDUSTR IES FOR RS 41,45291, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT RELATES TO WO RK DONE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2010- 11 AND CERTAIN DEFICIENCY WAS RAISED BY THE CUSTOME R AND A DEBIT NOTE WAS RAISED WHICH IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS BY DEBITING THE JOB WORK ACCOUNT. IN OUR VIEW, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCOUN TED FOR JOB WORK INVOICES IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 AND OFFERED THE SAME TO TAX, IN THAT CASE, WHERE ITA NO. 869/JP/2017 & CO NO. 05/JP/2018 THE ACIT, ALWAR VS. M/S SHRI BALAJI BUILDERS, ALWA R 9 THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE DEBIT NOTES IN RESPEC T OF SAID JOB WORK INVOICES ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN DEFICIENCY, THE ACCOUNTING SO DONE BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. IN THE RESULT, WE SET-ASIDE TH E MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ABOVE ASPECT AND WHERE THE SAME IS F OUND TO BE IN ORDER, THE EXPLANATION SO FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AND THE ADDITION IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 14. REGARDING ADDITION OF RS 51,91,097, THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SAME IS ON ACCOUNT OF DOUBLE DEDUCTION OF TDS AND A CERTIFICATE IS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE DEDUCTOR COMPANY WHICH SUPPORTS THE SAME. THE MATTER IS SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE AFORESAID CONTENTION AND CERTIFICATE SO FURNISHED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND WHERE THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE IN ORDER, ALLOW THE NECESSARY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS-OBJE CTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/02/2019. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 25/02/2019 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S SHRI BALAJI BUILDERS, ALWAR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 869/JP/2017 & CO NO. 05/JP/2018 } ITA NO. 869/JP/2017 & CO NO. 05/JP/2018 THE ACIT, ALWAR VS. M/S SHRI BALAJI BUILDERS, ALWA R 10 VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR