Accrual of income and concealment penalty turn on enforceable rights and sustained additions in a construction-contract dispute.

Retention money withheld under a construction contract did not accrue on completion because the assessee had no present enforceable right to receive it until the defect liability period expired without defects; it became taxable only when that right arose. Additions linked to work-in-progress and bills receivable were to follow the operative Settlement Commission order for the time being, subject to any later invalidation of that order. Loss on termination of the contract was allowable in the year suffered, even though arbitration was pending, because possible future recovery would be dealt with later. Penalty for concealment could not survive once the underlying additions failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether retention amounts withheld under the terms of a construction contract accrued for taxation on completion of the contract; (ii) whether additions relating to work-in-progress and bills receivable had to follow the Settlement Commission order; (iii) whether loss claimed on termination of contract was allowable while arbitration proceedings were pending; and (iv) whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could survive when the related additions were not sustained.

Issue (i): Whether retention amounts withheld under the terms of a construction contract accrued for taxation on completion of the contract.

Analysis: The contractual clause enabled the awarder to retain a portion of the contract amount for the defect liability period, and the assessee had no enforceable right to receive the retained sum until expiry of that period without defects. Accrual depends on the existence of a present right to receive income, and the mere completion of the work does not by itself create such right where payment is contractually withheld for later adjustment. The fact that the assessee followed the mercantile system did not alter the position, because accrual had not occurred on the completion date.

Conclusion: The retention amounts did not accrue on completion of the contract and were taxable, if at all, only on completion of the retention period. The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether additions relating to work-in-progress and bills receivable had to follow the Settlement Commission order.

Analysis: The Tribunal had treated the Settlement Commission order as governing the subsequent assessment years, and the Court held that, so long as that order remained in force, the Department had to give effect to its consequences in making later assessments. The controversy was not converted into a substantial question of law on the facts of the remand-related adjustments, and the Court declined to reopen the matter while the Settlement Commission proceedings remained pending. A limited reservation was kept open for the Revenue to seek reconsideration if that order were later declared void.

Conclusion: The additions had to be dealt with in accordance with the Settlement Commission order for the time being. The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether loss claimed on termination of contract was allowable while arbitration proceedings were pending.

Analysis: The contract stood cancelled, the bank guarantee had been encashed, and the assessee no longer retained the amount as an asset in the relevant year. The pendency of arbitration did not postpone recognition of the loss already suffered in that year; any future recovery, if made, could be dealt with in the year of receipt. The loss was therefore real and allowable in the year in question.

Conclusion: The business loss was allowable notwithstanding the pending arbitration. The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (iv): Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could survive when the related additions were not sustained.

Analysis: The penalties were founded on the very additions that had not been sustained in the quantum appeals, and once the underlying additions failed, the basis for concealment penalty also disappeared. The Court, however, preserved the possibility of reconsideration if the Settlement Commission order were later set aside and the additions were revived, while separately noting that the retention-money issue had been decided independently in favour of the assessee.

Conclusion: The penalty orders could not stand on the existing record and were set aside. The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals on the quantum issues were rejected, the assessee's penalty appeals succeeded, and the retained-money and related assessment questions were resolved largely in favour of the assessee, subject to the limited reservation regarding any future setting aside of the Settlement Commission order.

Ratio Decidendi: Income accrues only when the assessee acquires an enforceable right to receive it, and a penalty for concealment cannot survive once the foundation addition is not sustained.

---