2016 (1) TMI 1305 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of CLU and EDC charges - Held that - In the light of the MOU and the letter from Town & Country Planning, Haryana, it is clear that assessee was service provider to Inscol and made available lands to the Inscol at a fixed price which includes the CLU and EDC charges. Since, the Government did not grant CLU, therefore, assessee refunded ₹ 2 Crores to Inscol and has shown as liability in the balance sheet. ₹ 40 lacs was incurred for getting CLU, therefore, ld. CIT(Appeals) was justified in holding that the amount shall have to be reduced from the total receipts received from Inscol. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the revenue. The same is accordingly, dismissed. Addition on account of payment of Stamp Duty charges and payment for registration charges - Held that - No merit in this ground of appeal of the revenue. The ld. DR relied upon order of the Assessing Officer. The copy of the MOU is filed on record which shows that assessee would be entitled for the amount for sale of the land at fixed price which includes the cost of the land paid to the land owners and stamp duty and registration charges. Therefore, the general proposition adopted by the Assessing Officer would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. This fact is supported by the balance sheet of Inscol which revealed that it has purchased the land inclusive of stamp duty and registration charges. Since, the transaction is inclusive of stamp duty and registration charges, therefore, ld. CIT(Appeals), on proper appreciation of facts and material on record correctly deleted both the additions. Addition on account of advances forfeited by the land owners - Held that - When the total sale consideration received from Inscol is treated as income in the hands of the assessee, authorities below were not justified in not allowing benefit of forfeited amount as expenditure in the hands of the assessee. Since it was liability of the assessee to bear the expenditure incurred on account of forfeited amount as advance given to the land owners, therefore, it shall have to be allowed as deduction in favour of the assessee. Further, on the same anology, when the Assessing Officer has allowed cost of land i.e. payment made to the land owners as deduction in favour of the assessee in rectification order, there was no reason to disallow the deduction of ₹ 50 lacs on this issue. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of authorities below and delete addition of ₹ 50 lacs. In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. Addition on account of Miscellaneous Expenses - Held that - No merit in this ground of appeal of the assessee. Since assessee failed to produce any voucher of the expenditure on this issue and no details have been provided, therefore, Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition by reducing the cost of acquisition. No reply have been filed before ld. CIT(Appeals). Further, no vouchers or evidences have been produced before us on this issue, therefore, we are unable to interfere with the orders of the authorities below on this issue. We, accordingly, confirm the addition. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of CLU and EDC charges.
2. Deletion of addition on account of Stamp Duty and Registration Charges.
3. Addition on account of advances forfeited by landowners.
4. Addition on account of Miscellaneous Expenses.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of addition on account of CLU and EDC charges
The revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,40,00,000/- on account of CLU and EDC charges. The assessee submitted that the amount included in the sale consideration was for services provided, including procurement of land and obtaining necessary permissions. The CIT(Appeals) found that the amount was shown as a liability in the balance sheet and that Rs. 40 lacs were incurred on this account while Rs. 2 Crores were refunded to Inscol. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals) decision, agreeing that the amount should be reduced from the total receipts, as the assessee acted as a service provider and refunded the amount due to the non-grant of CLU by the government.

Issue 2: Deletion of addition on account of Stamp Duty and Registration Charges
The revenue contested the deletion of Rs. 57,15,000/- for Stamp Duty and Rs. 5,44,300/- for Registration Charges. The assessee argued that the MOU specified these charges were to be borne by the assessee and were included in the sale consideration. The CIT(Appeals) found that the sale price was inclusive of these charges, and the balance sheet of Inscol corroborated this. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the MOU and the balance sheet supported the inclusion of these charges in the sale consideration, thereby justifying their deduction.

Issue 3: Addition on account of advances forfeited by landowners
The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 50 lacs for advances forfeited by landowners. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, noting that the advances were not related to the land for which short-term capital gain was declared. However, the Tribunal found that the MOU included a clause specifying that forfeited amounts should be borne by the assessee or deducted from the sale consideration. Since the total sale consideration was treated as income, the Tribunal ruled that the forfeited amount should be allowed as a deduction, setting aside the orders of the authorities below and deleting the addition of Rs. 50 lacs.

Issue 4: Addition on account of Miscellaneous Expenses
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 4,35,000/- for Miscellaneous Expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount due to a lack of supporting vouchers and details. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the disallowance, noting no reply was filed at the appellate stage. The Tribunal agreed, stating that without vouchers or evidence, the addition was justified. Thus, the addition of Rs. 4,35,000/- was confirmed.

Conclusion:
The departmental appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decisions on CLU and EDC charges, Stamp Duty, and Registration Charges, while allowing the deduction for forfeited advances but confirming the disallowance of Miscellaneous Expenses.

← Previous Next →