Construction company wins as books accepted without Section 145 rejection, profit estimation deleted

ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed revenue appeal in construction company case. Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of profit estimation addition, ruling AO incorrectly applied Profit Margin Method without rejecting books under Section 145. Following ICAI guidance, land cost exclusion from construction development cost kept project completion below 25% threshold, negating revenue recognition requirement. Tribunal also upheld deletion of Section 36(1)(ii) disallowance on interest-free advances, finding assessee had surplus interest-free funds exceeding advances, following Gujarat HC precedent in Amod Stamping case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in restricting the profits to Rs. 3,11,94,560/- as declared by the assessee.
2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,06,64,058/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

Issue 1: Restriction of Profits
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, which restricted the profits to Rs. 3,11,94,560/- as declared by the assessee, instead of Rs. 5,88,63,783/- estimated by the Assessing Officer (AO) using the Profit Margin Method (PMM). The CIT(A) noted that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, and the assessee's books of accounts, which were regularly maintained and audited, were not rejected u/s 145 of the Act. The AO did not point out any defects or shortcomings in the books, nor did he provide evidence of suppression of receipts or inflation of expenditure. The CIT(A) emphasized that without rejecting the books of accounts, the AO could not estimate profits. The CIT(A) relied on various judicial precedents, including CIT v. Shakti Industries and CIT v. Symphony Comforts Systems Ltd., to support the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO's estimation lacked merit and was not supported by material evidence.

Issue 2: Deletion of Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii)
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs. 1,06,64,058/- made by the AO u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The CIT(A) observed that the AO ignored the interest income earned by the assessee and incorrectly calculated the net interest expenses. The CIT(A) further noted that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, far exceeding the interest-free advances, which justified the deletion of the disallowance. The CIT(A) relied on judicial precedents, including Pr. CIT v. Diamond Textile Mills and CIT v. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd., which established that no disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) can be made if the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Revenue did not controvert the factual findings, and the disallowance made by the AO was unjustifiable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order to restrict the profits to Rs. 3,11,94,560/- and delete the disallowance of Rs. 1,06,64,058/- u/s 36(1)(iii). The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's actions were not supported by material evidence and were contrary to established legal principles. The order was pronounced in the open court on 08-05-2023.

---