2024 (9) TMI 1514 - AT - Income Tax

Tax authority cannot treat advance payments as unaccounted receipts when properly recorded as liability in books

ITAT Nagpur upheld CIT(A)'s decision deleting addition of Rs. 2,00,95,900 treated as unaccounted receipts from advance payments received by assessee. ... Addition as unaccounted receipts - treated as advance received by the assessee, to the returned income - credibilty of statements of the Members of the Samiti - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue before us covered by the judgment of Narayansingh Gulabsinghji [2015 (4) TMI 622 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein held assessee was following the system regularly showing the mobilization account and the amount of advance were always stated in the subsequent AY against bills in that year and the revenue had not raised any objection for that treatment - when the learned CIT (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of 'Mobilization Advance' in the year under consideration, it cannot be said that the learned CIT (Appeals) as well as the learned Tribunal have committed any error. On a perusal of the statements of the Members of the Samiti, it is evident that they did not have full knowledge on the progress of work and that the Sub Divisional Engineer, Rural Water Supply, was looking after the matter. Various work completion certificates clearly denotes that the work was completed subsequently and the income was also offered for taxation in subsequent years. We further find that it is beyond comprehension as to how the non–commensurate amount of work–in–progress amounting to ₹ 69,31,666, convert the advances as an income. The Assessing Officer has ultimately added ₹ 2,00,95,900, as an unaccounted receipts from Samiti. The Assessing Officer has failed to note that the same has already been shown in the books of account by way of liability. Therefore, is it not the case that the receipts are not accounted at all. Consequently, there is no instance to interfere with the cogent observations of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is upheld by dismissing the grounds raised by the Revenue. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 2,12,95,900 as unaccounted receipts.2. Reliability of statements from Samiti members.3. Consistent accounting practice and tax neutrality.4. Rejection of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 2,12,95,900 as Unaccounted Receipts:The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 2,12,95,900 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) as unaccounted receipts. The AO observed an increase in sundry creditors and added the amount as income, arguing that the assessee had not accounted for these receipts. The CIT(A) found that the AO's addition was based solely on the statements of Samiti members without corroborating documentary evidence. The CIT(A) noted that the statements were self-contradictory and inconsistent with the documentary evidence, such as ledger accounts, bank statements, and work completion certificates. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO's decision was not justified and directed the deletion of the addition.2. Reliability of Statements from Samiti Members:The CIT(A) found that the statements of Samiti members were unreliable as they were contradictory to the documentary evidence. The AO relied heavily on these statements, which claimed that payments were made only after work completion and no advances were given. However, the CIT(A) highlighted various inconsistencies in these statements and noted that the AO did not allow the assessee to cross-examine the Samiti members. The CIT(A) emphasized that the statements were recorded under pressure and were not credible. The tribunal upheld this view, stating that the statements alone could not be the basis for the addition without supporting evidence.3. Consistent Accounting Practice and Tax Neutrality:The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's consistent accounting practice of recognizing revenue only upon completion of specific stages of work. The assessee argued that this practice was followed in previous and subsequent years without objection from the Revenue. The CIT(A) supported this by citing the Supreme Court's decision in Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT, emphasizing the principle of consistency. Additionally, the CIT(A) noted that the dispute was tax-neutral as the same tax rate applied in subsequent years when the income was eventually recognized. The tribunal agreed, citing judicial precedents like CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. and CIT v. Millennium Estates (P) Ltd., which support the non-litigative approach on tax-neutral issues.4. Rejection of Books of Accounts by the Assessing Officer:The CIT(A) observed that the AO did not reject the books of accounts as required under Section 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The AO's addition was made without finding any defects in the books of accounts, which were audited and maintained regularly. The CIT(A) emphasized that the AO should have first rejected the books before making any additions. The tribunal upheld this view, stating that the AO's failure to reject the books of accounts invalidated the addition of Rs. 2,12,95,900 as unaccounted receipts.Conclusion:The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 2,12,95,900, finding that the AO's reliance on unreliable statements and failure to reject the books of accounts were unjustified. The tribunal emphasized the importance of consistent accounting practices and the principle of tax neutrality, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 02/09/2024.