Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, has erred in confirming the inadmissible expenditure of Rs.1,40,000. The entire addition is liable to be deleted.
4. The appellant craves leave to add/ alter/modify grounds which would be necessary for adjudication of the case."

Additional ground:

The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have granted further benefit of telescoping in respect of the addition made by the Assessing officer ( RS. 11,21,87,364/-) and additional income admitted by the assessee (Rs.4,50,55,095/- for the A.Y.s 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively, aggregating to Rs.15,72,42,459/- while confirming the addition of Rs.13,42,84,130/- (out of 24.69 crores), being alleged unaccounted payment made to Mukesh Sharma.

20. The learned AR referring to the additional ground submitted that for the A.Y 2010-11, the assessee has admitted the amount of Rs.11.21 crores and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping in the AY 2008-09. He had drawn our attention to the finding of the Assessing Officer in the AY 2010-11 which is as under:

"1.5 .....
After the enquiries, the assessee filed a revised return on 31.12.2012 admitting income of rs.11,21,87,364/-. The revised total income came to Rs.255,06,22,375/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010."

(vi) With regard to the year of incurring the unexplained expenditure under consideration, the AO based on the dates has made addition in AY 2008-09 and the CIT(A) allocated the same amount for three consecutive assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, which the department has not contested in appeal.

(b) With regard to the set off/telescoping claim made by the AR, it is submitted that the assessee company executed 55 projects in the AY 2008-09, 65 projects in the AY 2009-10, 51 projects in 2010-1 1 and 47 projects in the AY 2011-12, which may have required huge unexplained expenditure, for which separate additions have been made by the AO in the relevant AYs based on ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd the seized documents and admissions by the director of the company. Therefore, credit/set off/ telescoping cannot be given for income admitted in one year against the expenditure of different assessment year, as the income admitted/offered by the assessee actually relates unexplained expenditure incurred during that relevant financial year. Further, the income admitted related to AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 which are later years to AY 2008-09.

24.7 With respect to A.Y. 2011-12, the argument of the assessee is that the additional income admitted by the assessee in the F.Y. 2010-11 for an amount of Rs.4,50,55,095/- is to meet all the eventualities that may arise. The assessee by way of the additional ground as mentioned hereinabove sought to seek the telescoping / setting off of the income of Rs.4,50,55,095/- declared in the assessment year 2011-12 for A.Y. 2008-09. In our considered opinion, the same cannot be permitted for the reason that the assessment was completed for A.Y. 2011-12 and the ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd assessee is not in appeal before us. The grounds which have attained finality and when the assessee is not in appeal cannot be disturbed for the proceedings for A.Y. 2008-09. In the appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2011-12, this relief cannot be granted. The assessee in the additional ground and in alternative submission has sought to the telescoping of Rs.11,21,87,364/- and Rs.4,50,55,095/- (totaling to Rs.15,72,42,459/-) as against the addition of Rs.13,42,84,130/-. This relief cannot be granted as the sum of the amount would be more than the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground No.2 and the additional grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.