2025 (8) TMI 738 - AT - Income Tax

Retention Money Must Be Included in Contract Revenue for AY 2017-18 Under Section 43CB and ICDS-III

The ITAT Cochin held that retention money withheld by the appellant must be included in contract revenue for AY 2017-18 under section 43CB and ICDS-III, ... Income recognition - Addition as retention money withheld which is against the Income Tax Act and ICDS-III Construction Contracts - Computation of income from construction and service contracts - appellant has followed the mercantile system as well as ICDS - HELD THAT:- The assessee was following Mercantile system of accounting and had to account for all the receipts on accrual basis and accordingly, the retention money could not be excluded specially when there is express provision in the Act itself brought in by the Finance Act, 2018 w.r.e.f. 01.04.2017. Assessee cannot contend that they will not follow the law and will adopt a particular method of offering retention money to tax, despite the change in law by the competent legislature i.e. Parliament. We agree with the view of the ld. CIT(A) / NFAC that the amount of retention money was actually received by it in the subsequent assessment years does not have any relevance because the assessee has maintained its account on mercantile basis. Since specific provision has been brought into the Act w.e.f. AY 2017-18, the case laws brought in by the assessee are not relevant in determining the taxability of retention money in the case of a contractor. Before 01/04/2017 there was no mandatory provision with regard to taxability of the Retention money. We are of the view that section 43CB as well as the ICDS-III applicable for the relevant assessment years clearly state that contract revenue shall include the retention money and therefore, we find no merits in the submission of the AR of the assessee. The judgment of P.A. Jose vs. Union of India [2024 (5) TMI 1366 - KERALA HIGH COURT] is distinguishable from the present facts and circumstances of the case as held that the stipulation under clause 16 of the ICDS (II) for the adoption of FIFO or weighted average cost for valuation of the stock / inventory cannot be applied in the assessment year 2017- 18 for the valuation of opening stock as the opening and closing stock of the year is to be valued by applying the same methodology. Thus, considering the express provision in the Act, by way of insertion of Section 43CB by the Finance Act, 2018 w.r.e.f. 01.04.2017, we held that the contract revenue shall comprise of retention money if any. As before us as the AR of the assessee has claimed that the withheld performance retention of FY 2016-17 relevant for AY 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 1,02,24,936/- were offered to tax in the AY 2019-20 amounting to Rs. 99,71,078/- and in the AY 2020-21 amounting to Rs. 3,18,125/-, we are remitting this issue to the file of AO for the limited purpose of examining whether such amount were offered to tax as mentioned above in AY 2019-20 and 2020-21 and we further direct the AO to delete the same if found offered to tax in those assessment years as in our view it would amounts to double taxation. We also direct the AO to pass consequential appeal effect orders for the AY 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21. It is ordered accordingly. The addition of performance retentions for the AY 2017-18 is accordingly confirmed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED 1. Whether the retention money withheld as performance guarantee in construction contracts is includible as income in the year of contract completion or only upon reasonable certainty of its ultimate collection. 2. Whether the provisions of Section 43CB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and ICDS-III on Construction Contracts mandate inclusion of retention money in contract revenue for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and subsequent years. 3. Whether the recognition of retention money as income before the expiry of the performance guarantee period and before reasonable certainty of collection violates the mercantile system of accounting and principles of income recognition. 4. Whether taxing the same retention money in the year of contract completion and again in subsequent years when actually received amounts to double taxation. 5. The applicability and relevance of judicial precedents and CBDT Circular No. 10/2017 in the context of retention money recognition and taxability. 6. The impact of retrospective insertion of Section 43CB by the Finance Act, 2018 (effective from 01.04.2017) on the recognition and taxation of retention money. 7. The relevance of a jurisdictional High Court judgment on ICDS applicability and accounting methods to the present facts. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Taxability of Retention Money and Timing of Income Recognition Legal Framework and Precedents: Prior to insertion of Section 43CB, judicial decisions held that retention money does not accrue as income until the defect liability period expires and the Engineer-in-Charge certifies no liability remains. This principle was upheld in various decisions emphasizing that retention money accrues only upon reasonable certainty of collection. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court acknowledged that the assessee consistently followed the mercantile system of accounting, recognizing income only when there was reasonable certainty of collection of retention money, i.e., after expiry of the performance guarantee period. The retention money withheld during FY 2016-17 was not recognized as income in that year but in subsequent years when collection became reasonably certain. Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee demonstrated that retention money of Rs. 1,02,24,936/- was withheld for contracts completed in FY 2016-17, and portions thereof were offered as income in FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20 after the performance guarantee period expired. Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the assessee's method aligned with established accounting principles and earlier judicial pronouncements that retention money accrues only upon reasonable certainty of collection. However, this position was challenged by the introduction of Section 43CB. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue contended that retention money must be included in contract revenue in the year of contract completion under Section 43CB and ICDS-III. The assessee argued for recognition only upon certainty of collection, supported by prior case law and accounting standards. Conclusions: The Court recognized the assessee's accounting method as consistent with prior law but noted the effect of legislative changes mandating inclusion of retention money in contract revenue irrespective of collection certainty. Issue 2: Applicability and Effect of Section 43CB and ICDS-III on Retention Money Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 43CB, inserted retrospectively from 01.04.2017 by the Finance Act, 2018, mandates computation of profits from construction contracts on percentage of completion method and explicitly includes retention money in contract revenue. ICDS-III similarly requires recognition of contract revenue including retention money based on reasonable certainty of collection. The Delhi High Court held that ICDS-III and related CBDT Circular No. 10/2017 were ultra vires to the extent they sought to tax retention money before accrual under settled principles, emphasizing case-by-case factual determination. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that Section 43CB is a specific statutory provision overriding earlier judicial pronouncements and accounting standards by mandating inclusion of retention money in contract revenue from AY 2017-18 onwards. The retrospective insertion was intended to regularize compliance with ICDS and prevent litigation. Key Evidence and Findings: The Court examined the statutory text of Section 43CB(2)(i) which explicitly includes retention money in contract revenue for computation of income. The memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, 2018 confirmed the retrospective intent to align tax treatment with notified ICDS. Application of Law to Facts: Since the AY under consideration is 2017-18, the Court held the provisions of Section 43CB apply mandatorily, requiring inclusion of retention money in contract revenue irrespective of actual receipt or certainty of collection at contract completion. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee relied on prior judicial decisions and accounting principles allowing deferment of income recognition until certainty of collection. The revenue relied on the express statutory provision and legislative intent to include retention money in contract revenue for the AY 2017-18 and subsequent years. Conclusions: The Court upheld the application of Section 43CB and ICDS-III for AY 2017-18, confirming that retention money is includible in contract revenue and taxable in the year of contract completion under the mercantile system, notwithstanding the timing of actual receipt. Issue 3: Consistency of Mercantile Accounting and Effect of Legislative Change Legal Framework and Precedents: The mercantile system requires income recognition on accrual basis, generally when there is reasonable certainty of ultimate collection. Prior to Section 43CB, this principle governed recognition of retention money. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court recognized that the assessee had consistently applied the mercantile system and ICDS principles before the legislative change. However, the insertion of Section 43CB by Parliament effectively modified the accounting and tax treatment for retention money from AY 2017-18 onwards. Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's prior acceptance by revenue of the accounting method was noted but held not determinative post-insertion of Section 43CB. Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that the assessee cannot disregard the statutory amendment and continue to adopt a method inconsistent with the law. The mercantile system remains applicable but must be read in conjunction with Section 43CB's mandate to include retention money in contract revenue irrespective of collection certainty. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that the legislative change should not override established accounting principles and cause double taxation. The revenue stressed the primacy of the statutory provision. Conclusions: The Court emphasized that the legislative change supersedes prior accounting practices and the assessee must comply with the law as amended by Parliament. Issue 4: Double Taxation of Retention Money Legal Framework and Precedents: Tax principles prohibit double taxation of the same income in different assessment years. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court acknowledged the assessee's submission that the retention money was offered to tax in subsequent years (FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20) after expiry of performance guarantee period, which could lead to double taxation if also taxed in AY 2017-18. Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee provided figures of Rs. 99,71,078/- and Rs. 3,18,125/- offered as income in subsequent years corresponding to the withheld retention money. Application of Law to Facts: To avoid double taxation, the Court remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of whether the retention money was indeed taxed in subsequent years, directing deletion of the addition if confirmed. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue did not dispute the possibility of double taxation but maintained the statutory requirement for inclusion in AY 2017-18. Conclusions: The Court directed the Assessing Officer to examine and eliminate double taxation, passing consequential orders for the relevant assessment years. Issue 5: Applicability of CBDT Circular No. 10/2017 and Judicial Precedents Legal Framework and Precedents: CBDT Circular No. 10/2017 clarified that retention money is to be recognized as revenue subject to reasonable certainty of collection under ICDS-III. However, the Delhi High Court struck down the circular and related notifications as ultra vires for AY 2017-18. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted the conflict between the circular and judicial pronouncements but emphasized that Section 43CB, inserted subsequently, regularized the position by statutory mandate. Key Evidence and Findings: The Court distinguished the circular and judicial pronouncements by their timeline and legislative context. Application of Law to Facts: For AY 2017-18, the Court gave primacy to Section 43CB over the circular and earlier judicial decisions, holding that retention money must be included in contract revenue and taxed accordingly. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee relied on the circular and precedents to defer recognition; the revenue relied on the statutory provision. Conclusions: The Court upheld the retrospective statutory provision over the circular and earlier case law for AY 2017-18. Issue 6: Relevance of Jurisdictional High Court Judgment on ICDS Applicability Legal Framework and Precedents: The jurisdictional High Court judgment concerned ICDS-II relating to stock valuation and the non-applicability of retrospective amendment to assessees following LIFO method. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found the High Court judgment distinguishable as it dealt with inventory valuation in trading business, not construction contracts or retention money under ICDS-III and Section 43CB. Key Evidence and Findings: The facts of the High Court case involved jewellery trading and stock valuation methods, unlike the present construction contract context. Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that the High Court ruling on ICDS-II does not apply to the present issue of retention money under ICDS-III and Section 43CB. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee sought to rely on the High Court ruling to challenge retrospective application of ICDS and Section 43CB; the Court rejected this reliance. Conclusions: The Court ruled the High Court judgment irrelevant to the present facts and issue.