Assessee included 15% of work in progress as income. During reassessment AO increased percentage by further 15%. Tribunal rejected holding that the AO ought to have guided the assessee to follow accepted method of accounting to declare profits. (Circular No. 14/1955 dt. 11.04.1955, followed). Followed CIT v. British Paints India (1991) 188 ITR 44 (SC) where Supreme Court rejected use of unaccepted method of accounting. Remanded matter to AO to assess income basis recognised methods of accounting. Fresh consequential ground for not allowing TDS credit. Since no new facts required, grounds admitted, National Termal Power Ltd v.CIT (1999) 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) Nirmala L.Mehta v A.Balasubramiam (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) (HC), followed). (AY. 2011-13, 2012-13)
Monarch Plaza Comforts Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 87 ITR 24 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)
S. 145 : Method of accounting-Ad hoc method of accounting-Followed by AO and assessee-Held unacceptable-Remand-Fresh consequential grounds-Permissible-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer.