2010 (4) TMI 886 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of return - revised return u/s 139(5) method of accounting - Assessee-company was following completion method of accounting - During year under consideration, to match with Assessing Officer s finding in assessment year 1983-84 onwards, assessee changed its method of accounting from completion method of accounting to percentage method of accounting and filed original return - assessee filed revised return on the basis of completion method of accounting to maintain its consistency and in accordance with issue settled by Tribunal - Assessing Officer opined that a revised return could be used to correct obvious omission and mistake in the original return and it could not be used to raise an entirely new claim - He accordingly, rejected revised return and proceeded to make assessment on basis of original return - assessee filed revised return on the basis of completion method of accounting to maintain its consistency - assessee unable to take one stand whether he should stick to their own stand to follow completion method of accounting or to follow the Assessing Officer by following percentage method of accounting , that situation itself is sufficient to prove the bona fide of the assessee - revised return of income filed by assessee was in accordance with sub-section (5) of section 139 and, therefore, Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting said return - in favour of the assessee Disallowance on account of administrative charges paid to HDFC as a revenue expenditure and treating the same as deferred revenue expenditure - Assessee-company paid certain amount as administrative charges on loan obtained from bank Held that - There was no material on record on basis of which it could be said that there was an in-built condition of liability for a number of years - it was not revenue s case that assessee had incurred a liability to pay a larger amount than what it had borrowed at a future date - loan obtained cannot be treated as an asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of the business of the assessee. A loan is a liability and has to be repaid and, it is erroneous to consider a liability as an asset or an advantage - expenditure was made for securing the use of money for a certain period - expenditure was revenue expenditure - expenditure in question was not in the nature of capital expenditure and was laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of the assessee s business which is allowable expenses Capital gain - genuineness of the transaction - conversion from investment into stock-in-trade Held that - Genuineness of the transaction or genuineness of conversion of assets from investment to stock-in-trade which has already converted in earlier year and not during the year, cannot be examined in the year of the sale of stock-in-trade. It can be examined only in the year when the asset was acquired or converted from investment into stock-in-trade in favor of assessee

Issues Involved:

1. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 9 lakhs paid to M/s. Concept Marketing and Advertising Ltd.
2. Allowance of deduction of Rs. 9,88,03,025 for interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 2,14,166 on account of payment towards superannuation fund.
4. Assessment of income using 'completion method of accounting' versus 'percentage method of accounting'.
5. Allowance of claim of Rs. 11,49,22,689 by way of interest under section 36(1)(iii) which had been capitalized in books as work-in-progress.
6. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 3.25 lakhs under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act.
7. Rejection of revised return filed by the appellant and computation of income under section 115JA.
8. Disallowance of Rs. 2,23,68,234 on account of administrative charges paid to HDFC.
9. Taxing a sum of Rs. 6,19,02,450 as business income instead of capital gain.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 9 lakhs paid to M/s. Concept Marketing and Advertising Ltd.:
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer who had not provided any reasons for considering the rent of Rs. 12 lakhs paid by the assessee to the subsidiary company as excessive. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Assessing Officer's reasoning lacked basis and consistency with previous years where similar payments were not disallowed.

2. Allowance of deduction of Rs. 9,88,03,025 for interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest expenditure, arguing that the assessee's change in accounting method was not acceptable. The CIT(A) followed the Bombay High Court judgment in Lokhandwala Construction Industries Ltd., which allowed interest on borrowings for business purposes under section 36(1)(iii). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in allowing the deduction.

3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 2,14,166 on account of payment towards superannuation fund:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the contribution towards the superannuation fund, applying section 43B. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, noting that the payment was made within the due date. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the payment was timely and the disallowance was unjustified.

4. Assessment of income using 'completion method of accounting' versus 'percentage method of accounting':
The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to assess the income using the 'completion method of accounting,' consistent with previous ITAT decisions in the assessee's case. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the issue was settled by earlier ITAT orders and confirmed by the jurisdictional High Court.

5. Allowance of claim of Rs. 11,49,22,689 by way of interest under section 36(1)(iii):
This issue was identical to the one in the revenue's appeal for the assessment year 1997-98. Following the conclusions drawn in that decision, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing the interest deduction.

6. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 3.25 lakhs under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act:
This ground was similar to the one in the revenue's appeal for the assessment year 1997-98. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing with the deletion of the disallowance.

7. Rejection of revised return filed by the appellant and computation of income under section 115JA:
The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's rejection of the revised return, stating it was not in accordance with section 139(5). However, the Tribunal found that the revised return was filed to maintain consistency in accounting methods and correct a bona fide omission, thus allowing the revised return and setting aside the orders of the revenue authorities.

8. Disallowance of Rs. 2,23,68,234 on account of administrative charges paid to HDFC:
The CIT(A) had initially allowed the claim in the previous year but later relied on a Kolkata ITAT decision to uphold the disallowance. The Tribunal, however, found the case covered by the Supreme Court judgment in India Cement Ltd., allowing the administrative charges as revenue expenditure.

9. Taxing a sum of Rs. 6,19,02,450 as business income instead of capital gain:
The Assessing Officer taxed the amount as business income, questioning the genuineness of the conversion of shares from investment to stock-in-trade. The Tribunal, however, held that the genuineness of the conversion could not be examined in the year of sale if it was accepted in the year of conversion. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to assess the amount as capital gain.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeals, confirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on several grounds and setting aside the revenue authorities' orders where necessary. The judgments emphasized consistency in accounting methods and adherence to legal provisions and precedents.

← Previous Next →