Itxa/1833/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -Iii Pune v. Momin Builders

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1833 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Momin Builders ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Padma Divakar for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATED : 21ST MARCH, 2013 P.C. :- 1.In this appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 1999-2000, the basic question is: “ Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting Rs.10.9 lakhs added to the profit and loss account of the respondent-assessee, when the same was considered as part of work in progress in the return of income filed by the respondent-assessee ? “. itxa1833-11 2.The respondent-assessee was subjected to a survey conducted on 8[th] March, 1999. Consequent thereto a return of income was filed on 31[st] March, 2000 in which an additional amount of Rs.10.9 lakhs was further disclosed to the work in progress already disclosed at Rs.12.69 lakhs. This was done to cover up the declaration made of additional income during the course of the survey. The Assessing Officer held that this amount of Rs.10.9 lakhs has to be credited to the profit of loss account resulting in further profits of Rs.10.9 lakhs without having disturbed Rs.10.9 lakhs which was disclosed by the respondent-assessee as part of work in progress. 3.In appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.10.9 lakhs to the profit and loss account when the same is already a part of the declared work in progress. Thus allowed the respondent-assessee's appeal. On further appeal by the revenue, the Tribunal upheld the finding of CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue's appeal. The impugned order holds that crediting the amount of Rs.10.9 lakhs to the profit and loss account when the same was already a part of work in progress disclosed by it would amount to adding the same amount twice to determine the profit. This is not permissible. 4.The impugned order merely corrects a self evident error in the order of the Assessing Officer. In the above view, we see no reason to entertain this appeal. 5.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)