Tribunal upholds Project Completion Method for real estate projects, grants relief on commission expenses.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the addition of Rs. 3,96,99,161/-, upholding the assessee's use of the Project Completion Method for real estate projects. However, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal on the disallowance of commission expenses, affirming the disallowance except for one individual, granting relief of Rs. 24,79,385/-. The decision resulted in no order as to cost.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made by AO of Rs. 3,96,99,161/- by rejecting the books and treating the receipts from customers as income.
2. Granting relief of Rs. 24,79,385/- out of total addition of Rs. 25,79,385/- on account of disallowance of commission expenses.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of Addition of Rs. 3,96,99,161/- by AO
Facts:
The assessee, engaged in the real estate business, filed a return of income for AY 2015-16 declaring a loss of Rs. 1,59,40,582/-. The assessee followed the Project Completion Method of accounting, recognizing income upon receipt of full consideration and execution of sale deeds. The AO observed that the advances related to Project Grandeur amounting to Rs. 3,96,99,161/- should have been recognized as revenue based on the Percentage Completion Method as per ICAI guidelines, leading to the rejection of the books of accounts under Section 145(3) and addition of the said amount as income.

CIT(A) Findings:
The CIT(A) noted that the choice of accounting method lies with the assessee and cannot be imposed by the department, especially when the method has been consistently followed and accepted in the past. The CIT(A) emphasized that there is no mandatory provision under the Act requiring the Percentage Completion Method for real estate projects and that the ICAI's Guidance Note is recommendatory. The CIT(A) also pointed out that the AO's addition was incorrect as it taxed the entire receipt without considering the corresponding costs, leading to double taxation since the income was recognized in subsequent years.

Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee consistently followed the Project Completion Method, which is permissible under the Act. The Tribunal referenced the ITAT Bangalore Bench's decision in S.K. Properties vs ITO, which supported the recognition of income upon the transfer of ownership as per the Transfer of Properties Act. The Tribunal also highlighted that recognizing the advances as income in the year under consideration would result in double taxation since the amounts were subsequently recognized as sales in later years. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed Ground No. 1 of the Revenue.

Issue 2: Granting Relief of Rs. 24,79,385/- on Disallowance of Commission Expenses
Facts:
The assessee claimed commission expenses of Rs. 80,79,385/- for two projects. The AO issued summons to verify these expenses and found that some individuals had no knowledge of the commission work and could not provide details of the flats sold. The AO disallowed Rs. 25,79,385/- of the commission expenses, suspecting them to be bogus.

CIT(A) Findings:
The CIT(A) noted that the assessee provided complete addresses, and the payments were made by account payee cheques with tax deducted at source. Out of seven individuals produced before the AO, six confirmed receipt of the commission. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 1,00,000/- for one person who denied receiving the commission, granting relief for the remaining Rs. 24,79,385/-.

Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal reviewed the facts and the statements recorded by the AO. It found that several individuals had no knowledge of the commission work and could not provide details of the flats sold, indicating that the commission expenses were not substantiated. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court rulings, stating that the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the commission expenses. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the AO's disallowance except for the commission paid to Shri Akhil Boolia, thus partly allowing Ground No. 2 of the Revenue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the addition of Rs. 3,96,99,161/- but partly allowed the appeal concerning the disallowance of commission expenses, upholding the AO's disallowance except for one individual. The appeal was partly allowed with no order as to cost.

---