TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 1001
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowed the expenses claimed by the assessee. He estimated the profit of the assessee on the project constructed at M.G. Road, Bangalore. 3. The Assessing Officer pointed out that the assessee followed the method of recognizing income on estimation of profit on the basis of percentage of recovery of sales during the year. He observed that the assessee firm has developed the commercial property at M.G. Road, Bangalore, for which a plan was sanctioned vide letter No. LP.2924/81-82 dated 4.11.1981. The Assessing Officer considered three blocks i.e. A, B, and C. Each block consisted basement + ground + Mezzanine + Thirteen upper floors. The occupation certificate for 'A' Block was issued on 31.1.1992. As regards other two blocks occupation certificates was given on 1.7.1992. This occupation certificate was granted by the Bangalore Mahanagar Palika on receipt of the notice of the completion of the building from the Registered Architect and also clearance certificate issued from Karnataka Fire Force Department. 4. The Assessing Officer observed that though the occupation certificate was received in 1992, the income from the project has not been offered to tax till date. The Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cepted accounting principles. He held that the method followed by the assessee has no justification. Further, the A.O. held that the assessee's contention that it had already returned profit of Rs. 3,87,93,921/- upto 31.3.2005 is also not acceptable as the assessee has offered a very low rate of profit i.e. 12% on the total receipts during the year. He also observed that the assessee after offering to tax certain percentage of profits, had also claimed certain expenses on ad hoc basis to reduce the taxable profits. The A.O. also mentioned that the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 23,54,923/- and that this resulted in a net loss of Rs. 17,92,681/-. He has also observed that whatever was offered to tax, was added to work in progress of the project and it was carried forward so that whenever the project is offered for taxation, there is no double taxation on the same income. 7. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee should have offered the total income from the project to tax in the year in which occupation certificate was received by it i.e. 1992. He held by not offering the income to tax, the assessee had added administrative expenses, to the work-in-progress....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eted during the year and the income is to be computed accordingly. The CIT(A) ought to have held that on facts of the case, the project is not completed during the year and therefore loss of Rs. 12,57,430/- declared by the appellant ought to have been accepted. 3. Without prejudice to the ground No.2 above, learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow expenses at Rs. 59,14,724/- as against Rs. 62,74,544/- incurred by the appellant, on the ground that the balance amount of Rs. 3,59,820/- being advance to contractors cannot be allowed as details of the nature of advances and evidences thereof was not filed. 4. Without prejudice to ground 2, if it is to be held that the project was completed during the year, provision for all the expenses required to be incurred for achieving completion of the project but incurred subsequent to the year ought to be allowed while determining the profits from the project. 5. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, depreciation of Rs. 23,75,310/- ought to be allowed while determining the income of the appellant." 12. Shri S.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that for the last 22 years the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n found fault with the A.O. and on the contrary, the A.O. himself has added the same to the work-in-progress. There is no finding whatsoever that this expenditure is not for business purposes nor is it mentioned that the deduction is at all called for. 14. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no accounting standard nor a guidance note on the method of accounting that has to be followed by the real estate builders and developers. He further submitted that there is no regulatory requirement. He vehemently contends that if the argument of the A.O. is to be taken to its logical conclusion, then the income has to be assessed in the year in which the construction of the building is completed i.e. 1992 and not in this year. He further submitted that when the accepted fact is that the construction of the project is completed in 1992, , there is no requirement of the assessee maintaining stock register or inward and outward registers, etc. He submitted that when closing stock is worked out by the A.O., he should have worked out the opening stock also, which was not done. He contended that, whatever is the infirmities in the method of accounting, the same cannot b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... He further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in CIT v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (106 ITR 363)(Bom.) for the proposition that when the method of accounting followed by the assessee could not be said to be unreasonable method, even if a better method perhaps be visualized, the same cannot be imposed on the assessee. 17. He further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. 299 ITR 1 (SC). When the change of method is neutral, there is no need to interfere with the same. He further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Radhasoami Satsang (193 ITR 321)(SC) on the proposition that principles of consistency - 18. On ground No. 2 is on the issue of enhancement by the learned CIT(A). The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) has not given an opportunity nor was he asked for the details and hence the enhancement is bad in law. On the last ground, he submitted that the depreciation is disallowed without mentioning any reason whatsoever. He submitted that the same should be allowed. 19. The learned Departmental Representative, Shri Naresh Kumar Balodia, on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idering the situation whether, if a bald proposition put forward by the counsel is accepted, it would amount to giving the assessee a license to put off his tax liabilities for an unlimited period, by ensuring the ventures project never comes to an end in the sense that some or the other wwork always remains to be done. He pointed out that the Tribunal has observed that when the entire costs/expenditure to the assessee is recouped and or the major portion of the ventures/project is complete, there is really no justification in not taxing the income from the project which quite often may represent excess of receipts over expenditure. He relied on the order of the A.O. and submitted that there is no plan in the working of the A.O. as claimed by the assessee. Shri Balodia, learned Departmental Representative, took this Bench through the order of the Income-tax Officer in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1998-99, which is at page 9 of the assessee's paper book and pointed out that E and F buildings are residential blocks and A to C buildings were shops and that E and F buildings were completed. He relied on the order of the AO. He further referred to page 1 of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven if a project completion method is adopted on the principles of matching concept all future expenditure should be taken into account and matched with the receipts and only then the correct income has to be estimated. He reiterated his contention that the A.O. has not pointed a single defect in the books of account or rejected a single item of expenditure claimed during the year and on the contrary, has accepted that each and every expenditure claimed is for the purpose of business and allowed the same under section 37 and thereafter included the same in the workin- progress. He once again submitted that even if as it is not included in the work-inprogress, this expenditure has to be allowed as regular expenditure u/s.37 and this would go to reduce the profits of the company and in case of loss, the loss could be carried forward to the future years. He submitted that if the argument of the learned Departmental representative is accepted, then the project completion method has to be accepted and income estimated in the assessment year 1991-92 when admittedly the project is completed. He emphasized there is no event or occasion or material to change the method of accounting this ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear 1977-78, the assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 43,10,168/-. It had a sale of Rs. 30,73,216/-, out of which it received an amount of Rs. 29,00,759/-. During the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee had incurred an expenditure of `. 47.91 lakhs and had sale value of Rs. 58.02 lakhs. The construction of the building was completed by the end of the assessment year 1978- 79. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal held that income from profit is to be assessed for the assessment year 1978-79. Para 19, it states as follows: "However, the position as regards the assessment year 1978-79 is materially different. The construction of the building is completed in that year. Total area earmarked for sale is 61,396 sq.ft. out of which upto the end of that year the assessee had sold 49,965 sq. ft. i.e. about 80 per cent of the area. The net receipts have far exceeded the total cost or expenditure to the assessee. Assuming there is any possibility of the assessee's incurring some liability in future in connection with the completion of the project or otherwise, the unsold portion comprising of 12,331 sq. ft. and the difference between the net receipts and the total expend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l profit is to be determined when the project is complete. 26. As per the policy followed by the assessee, the project is fully completed only once all the shops are sold. This method of accounting is being consistently followed since the financial year 1984085 at page 8 of the assessee's paper book, the estimate of profit declared over the years which have been offered for taxation are listed. Asst.Year Recoveries Against sale Profit estimated Percentage Construction expenses 1985-86 4,565,507.00 456,550.70 10 13,730,976 1986-87 3,570,340.00 357,034.00 10 3,793,108 1987-88 4,391,600.00 438,897.00 10 1,722,211 1988-89 6,958,270.00 695,827.00 10 5,088,083 1989-90 10,607,141.00 1,272,856.92 12 10,082,088 1990-91 12,006,167.00 1,440,740.04 12 10,758,850 1991-92 7,227,956.00 1,011,913.84 14 12,680,518 1992-93 8,173,922.00 1,144,349,08 14 48,911,169 1993-94 19,101,657.00 2,674,231.98 14 27,964,130 1994-95 34,695,436.00 4,857,361.04 14 18,469,649 1995-96 74,640,843.00 10,449,718.02 14 14,161,019 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counting is not the most desirable and definitely can be improved upon, this by itself, cannot be a reason for change in the method of accounting. Just because a better method could the visualized, the Assessing Officer cannot, on the guise of changing the method of accounting, come to the conclusion that the income has crystallized during the year and has to be brought to tax. If at all the profits should have been estimated on project completion method then it is only in the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94. The only other alternative is to estimate the profits in the year of completion of sale i.e .assessment year 2005-06. In the intermediate years, in our humble opinion, it is not proper to disturb the methodology adopted by the assessee over the years and which has been accepted over the period of years. Even when the profits are estimated for the assessment year 2005-06, the profits that were already offered to tax and which were subjected to tax have to be necessarily deducted and only the difference should be brought to tax. Books of account cannot be rejected just because the A.O. wants to change the method of accounting. 30. Coming to the case laws, the case of CIT v.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1-1992 to 1997- 1998. In the past, the Department had accepted the completed contract method and because of such acceptance, the assessee, in these cases, have followed the same method of accounting, particularly in the context of chit discount. Every assessee is entitled to arrange its affairs and follow the method of accounting, which the Department has earlier accepted. It is only in those cases where the Department records a finding that the method adopted by the assessee results in distortion of profits, the Department can insist on substitution of the existing method. Further, in the present case, we find from the various statements produced before us, that the entire exercise, arising out of change of method from completed contract method to deferred revenue expenditure, is revenue neutral. Therefore, we do not wish to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. 21. Before concluding, we may point out that under s.211(2) of the Companies Act, Accounting Standards ("AS") enacted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants have now been adopted [see: judgment of this Court in J.K. Industries case (supra)]. Shri Tripathi, learned counsel for the Department, h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be accepted. 34. Coming to the decision in the case of Jahangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (49 ITR 137)(SC) relied upon by the learned D.R. the proposition laid down was that the fact that the assessee was treated as an investor in assessment relating to the asst.year 1943 would not estop taxing authorities from considering otherwise, when trading activity began. This decision, in our considered opinion does not help the revenue for the reason that the Hon''ble Supreme Court, based on facts held that the assessee can be considered as a dealer in shares once trading activity has begun, irrespective of the earlier finding when there was no such trading activity. 35. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd., vs. UOI (155 ITR 120) is not applicable to the facts of the case as the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the doctrine of precedent. This is a case of application of principle of consistency, when admittedly there are no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, from the earlier years. 36. Even otherwise, we see no reason for the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of account u/s.145(3), which reads as follo....