TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 1116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for hearing on 23.01.2020 and 26.10.2020, neither the assessee nor its authorized representative appeared before the Tribunal on the above dates. In view of the non-compliance by the assessee, we are proceeding to dispose off this appeal after examining the materials available on record and after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). 2. The 1st ground of appeal Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,76,07,910/-being the value of consideration received by the assessee when it was clear that substantial amounts have been received by the assessee before signing of the agreements of sale during the year. The 2nd ground of appeal Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in accepting the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e an addition of Rs. 2,76,07,910/- being the total of sales recognized by it in the subsequent two assessment years. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of hearing before the CIT(A), the assessee filed possession letters. The same being an additional evidence, the CIT(A) remanded it to the AO to verify it and send a report. After receipt of the remand report from the AO, the CIT(A) furnished a copy of it to the assessee to file its reply. The assessee filed a reply to the remand report on 07.02.2018. Having considered the facts of the case along with the remand report submitted by the AO and reply to it by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) held that (i) the gross sale rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t all risks and rewards are transferred on the date of sale agreement is not correct, (v) the AO has simply gone by the AIR information of registration of agreements of sale made during the year ; the AO has not called for books of accounts and examined the same. Holding as above, the Ld. CIT(A) further observed that in construction business the gross receipts cannot be net income, the corresponding expenditure is to be reduced to get the gross profit and examination of the accounts reveals that the assessee has carried forward part of expenditure as work-in-progress to later years and spent further the complete those projects. Considering the above facts, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,76,07,910/-. 5. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollowed by all assessees following the mercantile system of accounting. It is operative from 01.04.1997. As per the said Accounting Standard I "accrual" refers to the assumption that revenue and costs are accrued, that is, recognized as they are earned or incurred (and not as money is received or paid) and recorded in the financial statements of the periods to which they relate. In the instant case, the addition made by the AO of Rs. 2,76,07,910/- by shifting back the gross sale receipts recognized by the assessee in FYs 2011- 12 & 2012-13 to FY 2010-11, without shifting the expenditure incurred in connection with the completion of the said project violates the Accounting Standard I notified u/s 145(2) of the Act. There is merit in the f....