Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This appeal by the Revenue and Cross-objection thereof by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar dated 28.08.2014 for Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessment u/s 144C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as "the Act") for Assessment Year 2010-11 was framed on 20.05.2013 by DDIT, International Taxation-I, Ahmedabad.

2. Briefly stated facts, as culled out from the records, are that the assessee is incorporated as per the laws of People's Republic of China and is engaged in the business of erection, testing and commission etc. of power plants. For the year under consideration, the assessee has filed return of income on 15.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs.300,978,326/- after complying with provisions of section 44BBB(2) of the Act. The case was selected for the purpose of scrutiny Shandong Tijun Electronic Power Engg Co. Ltd AY : 2010-11 assessment and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 24.08.2011 and served upon the assessee on 29.09.2011. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 22.10.2012 calling for various information and documents. The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings appeared from time to time and furnished all the information and documents as required by the Assessing Officer. The learned Assessing Officer did not appreciate the various facts and law submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and passed the order u/s 144C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, determining total income at Rs.69,73,91,330/- in the hands of the assessee.

3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) and partly succeeded. Now, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds:-

"i) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the action of the AO in rejecting the books of account of the assessee company was incorrect inspire of clear evidence brought on record that the profit computed by the assessee was not reliable.
ii) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the action of the AO in resorting to estimation of income on presumptive basis at 10% u/s 44BBB(1) or alternately @ 11.79% under normal provisions of the Act was not correct.

7. Learned Departmental Representative failed to controvert this submission made by the assessee.

8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The issue before us is whether the learned Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the profits under Section 44BBB(1) of the Act. We observe that the assessee-company entered into agreement with Adani Power Ltd (APL) and Jhajjar Power Ltd (JPL) for Mundra and Haryana power projects. These contracts were entered into in the preceding financial year. Assessee has kept and maintained books of accounts duly audited under Section 44AB of the Act. Assessee followed and complied with the Accounting Standard AS-7 issued by the ICAI and recognized the revenue as per the Percentage Completion Method on the basis of proportion of actual cost incurred to the total estimated cost of the contract. Learned Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the accounting method adopted by the assessee for recognizing the revenue and was of the view that it should have been recognized on the basis of physical work completed at the end of the year. Books of accounts were accordingly rejected and profits were estimated under Section 44BBB(1) of the Act. We further observe that the very same issue came up before the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2009-10 and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee holding that learned Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the profits under Section 44BBB(1) of the Act by observing as follows:-

In view of foregoing, we, therefore, uphold the findings of ld. CIT(A) that the assessee fulfilled all conditions prescribed u/s 44BBB(2) of the IT Act and also has followed one of the recognized methods prescribed for determination of stage of completion of contract as prescribed in para 29 of the Accounting Standard-7 "Construction Contracts" as recognized by the ICAI and the Central Government. Assessee has followed correct method of accounting in terms of Section 44BBB(2) read with Section 145(1) & (2) of the IT Act. Consequently we hold that the ld. AO's action of rejecting books of accounts in terms of Section 145(3) of the IT Act and assessing income u/s 44BBB(1) of the IT Act on presumptive basis is not justified, the order of ld. CIT(A) is upheld. Our view is Shandong Tijun Electronic Power Engg Co. Ltd AY : 2010-11 fortified by Delhi ITAT judgment in the case of Royal Jordanian airlines (supra) which after dwelling over all relevant aspects of charging and mechanical provisions, statutory mandate, and jurisprudence of regular assessment vis-a-vis presumptive assessment and catena of judicial precedents as detailed in this order."