Pr. CIT v. Surya Infraventure (P) Ltd.

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs 2001 TaxPub(DT) 1102 (SC)
REFERRED K. Ravindranathan Nair v. CIT 2001 TaxPub(DT) 0871 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1233 (MP-HC) IN THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI & HIRDESH, JJ. Pr. CIT v. Surya Infraventure (P) Ltd. ITA No. 82 of 2023 26 February, 2024 Petitioner by: Veena Mandlik, Counsel Respondents by: None ORDER Heard on I.A. No. 1951/2024, an application for condo nation of delay. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 50 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Also heard on the question of admission. 4. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IT Act of 1961') being aggrieved by the consolidated Order dated 24-11-2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bench Indore in ITA No. 232/IND/2022 & C.O. No. 15/IND/2022 for the assessment year 2012-13. The following substantial question of law has been proposed in this appeal: (i) Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,37,50,000 on account of receipts not shown in the Return of income towards completion of specified works as per the milestone schedule of payment and cannot be treated as advance money? (ii) Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,42,880 on account of difference between gross receipts and actual receipts of the assessee? (iii) Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the action under section 147 of the assessing officer in reopening of the case by holding that the objection raised by the assessee were not disposed of by the assessing officer before completion of assessment? 5. In short, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether this appeal involves any substantial question of law, as is required to be made out under section 260A of the Act of 1961, that being the prerequisite of admission of the appeal. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee/respondent is a private limited company carrying on the business of government work contract for construction of road. The assessee/respondent filed e-return of income on 29-9-2012 for the assessment year 2012-13 declaring a loss of Rs. 1,79,88,391. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 25-3-2015 at the loss of Rs. 1,79,88,391 as declared by the assessee. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 18-12-2017. On receipt of notice, the assess filed its Return of Income on 20-1-2018 declaring loss of Rs. 1,79,56,045. Considering the facts and material, reassessment was completed on 28-9-2018 by making addition of Rs. 3,75,50,000 on account of amount received by the assessee from M/s. SCC Projects (P) Ltd. ('SCCPPL' for short) by treating it as income. Being aggrieved with the order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was allowed vide Order dated 16-8-2021. Against the said order, Revenue preferred an appeal before the ITA which was dismissed vide Order dated 24-11-2022 and the cross-objection of the assessee was allowed. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1233 (MP-HC)

IN THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI & HIRDESH, JJ.

Pr. CIT v. Surya Infraventure (P) Ltd.

ITA No. 82 of 2023

26 February, 2024

Petitioner by: Veena Mandlik, Counsel

Respondents by: None

ORDER

Heard on I.A. No. 1951/2024, an application for condo nation of delay.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 50 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

3. Also heard on the question of admission.

4. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IT Act of 1961') being aggrieved by the consolidated Order dated 24-11-2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bench Indore in ITA No. 232/IND/2022 & C.O. No. 15/IND/2022 for the assessment year 2012-13. The following substantial question of law has been proposed in this appeal:

(i) Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,37,50,000 on account of receipts not shown in the Return of income towards completion of specified works as per the milestone schedule of payment and cannot be treated as advance money?

(ii) Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,42,880 on account of difference between gross receipts and actual receipts of the assessee?

(iii) Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the action under section 147 of the assessing officer in reopening of the case by holding that the objection raised by the assessee were not disposed of by the assessing officer before completion of assessment?

5. In short, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether this appeal involves any substantial question of law, as is required to be made out under section 260A of the Act of 1961, that being the prerequisite of admission of the appeal.

6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee/respondent is a private limited company carrying on the business of government work contract for construction of road. The assessee/respondent filed e-return of income on 29-9-2012 for the assessment year 2012-13 declaring a loss of Rs. 1,79,88,391. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 25-3-2015 at the loss of Rs. 1,79,88,391 as declared by the assessee. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 18-12-2017. On receipt of notice, the assess filed its Return of Income on 20-1-2018 declaring loss of Rs. 1,79,56,045. Considering the facts and material, reassessment was completed on 28-9-2018 by making addition of Rs. 3,75,50,000 on account of amount received by the assessee from M/s. SCC Projects (P) Ltd. ('SCCPPL' for short) by treating it as income. Being aggrieved with the order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was allowed vide Order dated 16-8-2021. Against the said order, Revenue preferred an appeal before the ITA which was dismissed vide Order dated 24-11-2022 and the cross-objection of the assessee was allowed.