AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 555
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly processed u/s. 143(1), on 15-06-2002 determining the tax payable by the assessee at Rs. 22,28,630/-. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 20-01-2003 declaring a loss of Rs. 2,63,95,650/- which was erroneously processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on the same day determining a refund of Rs. 21,77,337/-. No notice u/s.143(2) (ii) of the Act was issued on the basis of the first return filed on 20-02-2002. However, on the basis of the revised return filed on 20-01-2003 a notice u/s.143(2)(ii) of the Act was issued on 27-05-2003 which was served on the assessee on 28-05-2003. The Assessing Officer later moved a petition u/s.263 of the Act to the CIT who vide order passed u/s.263 of the Act dated 26-08-2003 held that the second return furnished on 20-01-2003 was not a valid return and cancelled the second intimation dated 20-01-2003. Accordingly, the CIT cancelled the notice served on 28-05-2003 issued u/s.143(2)(ii) of the I.T. Act thus confirming the first intimation dated 15-06-2003 a final. 3. Subsequently, the assessee moved a petition u/s.264 of the I.T. Act on 03-09-2003 before the CIT, Aurangabad wherein the assessee sought revision of intimation dated 15-06-2002. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Assessing Officer may issue a notice u/s. 143(2)(ii) of the Act, and thereafter he may take a regular assessment". 6. Based on the directions of the CIT the Assessing Officer proceeded to make fresh assessment in respect of A.Yrs. 2001-02 to 2003-04. The main issue involved was the time and valuation of work-in-progress as on 31-03-2001 at Rs. 3 crores or at Rs. 4.94 crores. During the course of assessment proceedings it was contended by the assessee that the WIP should be taken at Rs. 3 crores and not Rs. 4.94 crores. To substantiate his claim the assessee filed the following submissions which has been summarised by the CIT(A) at para 7 of her order which reads as under : "The main issue was regarding valuation of work in progress as on 31-03-2001. The assessee was awarded the contract work of Ghatprabha Medium Project at Phatlakwad, Tq: Chandgad, Dist. Kolhapur in the year 1997. Since the work is of long term, the same is being carried on continuously. The method of accounting of the assessee is to recognise the revenue only on final passing of running bill by the concerned department. Every running payment is evaluated by the Engineer or Surveyor of the Department....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....certified and uncertified are part of work in progress. Without prejudice to this fact, in assessee's case entire work was certified: In case of the assessee, the R.A. Bill No.15 was duly certified and therefore, question of accounting of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- out of Rs. 5,88,69,955/-, does not arise. ii) The assessee himself has argued that assessee relied on AS- 7 and the work in progress is being valued on the basis of amount of bill payable once the departmental Engineer take measurement and valued the work which has been done in case of R.A. Bill No.15 on 31/03/2001. iii) The claim of the assessee that measurement was checked on 31/03/2001, but the papers were kept in his custody till 31/05/2002 is a statement devoid of any truth because the executive Engineer himself has clarified the position and secondly the final financial statement of the assessee are prepared after reconciliation and verification of the relevant facts and figures. iv) The accounting of Rs. 3,0,00,000/- on the basis of receipt of payment and considering the same for work in progress is not justified once the accounts are being maintained on mercantile basis. v) The return filed belatedly i.e. on 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....basic characteristic of a construction contract necessitates a different approach as that the work under contract expands over more than one recognition period. Earlier, there were two methods for revenue recognition one is completion contract method and the other one is percentage completion method. The revised accounting standard contains only percentage completion method. In case of percentage completion method, revenue is estimated and recognized as the work progresses. The salient features of revenue recognition under this method are; i) When outcome of a contract can be reliably estimated, contract receipt and contract cost should be estimated proportionately with reference to stage of completion. ii) Cost incurred on contract to the extent they are recoverable should be treated as receipt and total contract cost should be treated as expenses. Accordingly, profit and loss upto the date of stage of contract should be accounted for. iii) If it is expected that the total contract cost will exceed total contract revenue, the expected loss should be accounted for. The estimation of profit in percentage completion method, depends on estimation of total profit, stage ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... -do- 10 5/99 34259443 20000000 79-5/99 400000 -- 11 6/99 -- 13857697 43-6/99 277160 Withheld amount released 12 7/99 -- 401746 62-7/99 8035 -do- 13 5/2000 9820000 9820000 TEBI No.9- 8/2000 225860 -- 14 9/2000 23103000 23103000 -do- 11- 11/2000 508270 -- 15A 3/2001 58869955 30000000 37-5/2002 630000 -- 15B -do- -- 28800000 TEBI No.11, 12, 13, 18- 7/2003 60480 Withheld amount released 16A -do- 19212825 13700000 -do- 287700 -- 16B -do- -- 337000 120-3/04 7414 Withheld amount released However, as may be seen above, sometimes the R.A.bills were not paid fully, only part payment was made due to shortage of funds, there was no question of dispute in the passed bills as mentioned in your reference letter. The xerox copies of R.A.Bill No.15 and onwards is hereby enclosed for ready reference. Still an amount of Rs. 51,75,825/- is pending under R.A.bill No.16 due to shortage of funds and will be paid as soon as the funds are received. However there is no question of any sort of dispute as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in general terms that sometimes part payments are made for shortage of funds. He never pinpointed that Bill No.15 was short paid for shortage of funds. 12. As regards the observation of the Executive Engineer that there was no question of dispute in its bills it was argued that there are definitely differences between the claim and sanction. This itself is source of dispute even though there were no court or arbitration proceedings. Relying on various decisions it was submitted that the assessee has taken the value of WIP correctly as per the method of valuation regularly followed by the assessee and as per the accounting policy for valuation of stock and WIP as disclosed right from 1996 onwards. 13. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee the Ld.CIT(A) held that the belated return filed by the assessee cannot be revised and the return filed originally is the valid return. However, at the same time, the correct value of WIP for Ghatprabha project for A.Y. 2001-02 is Rs. 3 crores and not Rs. 4.94 crores. Therefore, even if the original return is not a valid return the assessee is liable for tax in A.Y. 2001-02 on the WIP of Rs. 3 crores and not Rs. 4.94 crores for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to receive that income or in other words the income will be said to accrue to the assessee when the assessee gets the right to receive that income whether it is paid later or during the same year. Relying on various decisions she noted that in the A.Y. 2001-02 the assessee has right to receive an amount of Rs. 3 crores only and in respect of the balance amount of Rs. 2.8 crores the claim had not become bills receivable and therefore this amount cannot be treated as WIP unless the work done in respect of this amount has been accepted by the appropriate authority. 16. So far as the situation in respect of A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003- 04 are concerned she noted that as per the work done certificate given by the Executive Engineer, the work in respect of bill No.15B, 16A and 16B has been completed to the satisfaction in the year relevant to A.Y. 2004-05. Hence, the income in respect of these bills accrued to the assessee in A.Y. 2004-05 only. Since the income of Rs. 4.28 crores has already been offered by the assessee and taxes have been paid by way of TDS, therefore, she held that same cannot be taxed in the year A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003-04. Even otherwise also, she noted that it is the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the bill is withheld, the withheld amount was not recognised as income either as contract receipt or work in progress until the withheld amount is released. vi On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the AO be restored. vii. The appellant craves leaves to add, amend, alter any ground(s) of appeal. 17.1 Identical grounds have been raised by the revenue in A.Yrs. 2002-03 and 2003-04. 17.2 The assessee has filed the Cross Objections by taking the following grounds ; "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law assessment dated 31-03-2005 is bad in law, illegal land without jurisdiction as the same was so completed without issue and service of notice under S.143(2) of the Act which is an undisputed fact since the AO himself has accepted this in his assessment order (ParaA). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the fall out of the order of Ld. CIT Aurangabad passed under section 263 of the Act dated 26-08-2003 is that the statutory notice issued under section 143(2) which was served on 28-05-2003 was held to be invalid and was cancelled. This means the assessment complete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has declared the WIP in respect of Ghatprabha Project at Rs. 4,94,00,000/-. Further, the assessee follows mercantile system of accounting, therefore, the value of WIP shown originally at Rs. 4.94 crores for the Ghatprabha Project has to be treated as correct. Referring to the certificate issued by the Executive Engineer he submitted that there is no such dispute as such and once the assessee has booked the expenditure in the profit and loss account and valued the WIP at a particular figure which was duly certified by the auditors, therefore, the assessee should not be permitted to reduce the same just to suit his requirement. He submitted that the CIT(A) without considering the accounting principles allowed the claim of the assessee by substituting the revised WIP which is not permissible in law. So far as the various decisions relied on by the Ld. CIT(A) are concerned, he submitted that those are not applicable to the facts of the present case and are distinguishable. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) be reversed and that of the AO be restored. 19. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand strongly relied on the order of the CIT(A). He submitted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cited before us. Before proceeding to decide the issue at hand the chronology of events that have taken place are material. In the instant case although the due date of filing of the return for A.Y. 2001-02 was 31-10-2001 the assessee filed return of income on 20-02-2002 declaring total income of Rs. 94,56,820/-. However, the audit report u/s.44AB dated 31- 10-2001 was furnished on 31-10-2001. The return filed on 20- 02-2002 was processed u/s.143(1) on 15-06-2002 determining the tax payable at Rs. 22,28,630/-. Subsequently, on 20-01-2003 the assessee filed a revised return declaring a loss of Rs. 2,63,95,650/- which was processed u/s.143(1) on the same day determining the refund to the assessee at Rs. 21,77,332/-. The Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s.143(2)(ii) on 27-05-2003 on the basis of the revised return filed on 20-01-2003 which was served on the assessee on 28-05-2003. The CIT issued a show cause notice to the assessee u/s.263 on 22-07-2003 fixing the date of hearing on 06-08-2003. Subsequently, he passed the order u/s.263 on 26-08-2003 cancelling the notice issued and served u/s.143(2)(ii) holding it as invalid. It was held that the intimation issued u/s.143(1) dated 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e find merit in the above argument of the Ld. Departmental Representative. From the copy of the letter addressed by the Executive Engineer, Medium Project, Kolhapur dated 24-03-2005 addressed to the Addl.CIT we find the Executive Engineer has stated as under : "No.MPD-2/AB-1/TT/1469 Office of the Executive Engineer, Medium Project Dr.No.2, Kolhapur Date : 24-03-2005 To The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Kolhapur. Subject : Commission u/s.131(1)(d) to conduct verification and obtain Explanation documents with respect to assessment proceedings in the case of M/s. Amberwadikar & Company, Aurangabad - Reg. Reference : Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Aurangabad's letter No.ABD/ADDL..CIT/R- /131/(1)(d)/2004-05, dt.23-03-2005. Dear Sir, With respect to the above, it is informed that the work of construction of Main Dam, I.C.P.O. of Ghatprabha Medium Project, Tal. Chandgad, Dist. Kolhapur is entrusted to M/s. Amberwadikar & Co., Aurangabad vide agreement No.B.1/CE/1 for 1997-98, the work was started by the agency in the month of April 1997 and the following payment has been made against their Running Accounts bills to-date. R.A.bil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.88 crores was not paid during F.Y. 2001-02 but the fact remains that there is no such dispute as claimed by the assessee. No documentary evidence/correspondence has been filed by the assessee during assessment proceedings or appeal proceedings or even before us to substantiate the contention that some dispute was going on between the assessee and department. It is also to be noted that the assessee has not incurred any further expenditure in subsequent years for receipt of the above amount. We do not find merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that since the assessee has offered the income in the A.Y. 2004-05 and since there is no loss to the revenue the order of the CIT(A) should be upheld. Here, in the instant case the question is not relating to loss to the Revenue. It relates to the taxability of the income in a particular year. In the instant case the assessee follows mercantile system of accounting, has debited all the expenditure to the profit and loss account during the impugned assessment year, has valued the WIP at a particular figure, got its accounts audited and filed the return of income belatedly. Having done so the question that arises is wheth....