2014 (5) TMI 347 - AT - Income Tax

Deletion of disallowance of development expenses Held that - CIT(A) rightly held that the assessee has brought up a scheme called Villa Sonata and has developed / was obliged to develop roads, common plots, club house with gymnasium, swimming pool etc., on which the expenses were claimed as Development Expenses and debited them to the Project account disallowance is to be made and the amount is added to the total income as declared by the assesee - no depreciation is allowable on the cost of facilities - the facilities and amenities ultimately would belong to the plot holders and any depreciation wear or tear would be their loss - CIT(A) while deleting the addition by a well-reasoned order granted substantial relief to the assessee revenue could not controvert the findings of CIT(A) nor had brought any material in its support thus, there is no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against CIT(A) order for AY 2009-10; Disallowance of development expenses.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the CIT(A) order for AY 2009-10. The case involved a partnership firm engaged in land and building development. The firm had filed its income return, which was scrutinized by the AO leading to an assessment under section 143(3) determining the total income. The main issue revolved around the disallowance of development expenses claimed by the Assessee, particularly expenses related to various amenities like club house, swimming pool, etc., provided to land purchasers in a project named "Villa Sonata." The AO considered these expenses capital in nature as the ownership of the amenities was retained by the firm. The CIT(A) disagreed, stating that the amenities were for all plot owners and that the ownership of common facilities did not rest with the firm. The CIT(A) highlighted that the expenses were debited to the trading account as revenue expenses, except for borewell and overhead tank costs. The CIT(A) concluded that the firm had to transfer all rights collectively to the plot owners, except for specific cases like borewell and overhead tank. The CIT(A) allowed a portion of the borewell expenses against the project cost. The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A) decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) decision, stating that the CIT(A) had provided a well-reasoned order that granted substantial relief to the Assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to challenge the findings of the CIT(A) or provide any supporting material. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A) order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The judgment was pronounced in open court on a specified date.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issue of disallowance of development expenses claimed by a partnership firm engaged in land and building development for AY 2009-10. The dispute centered on whether the expenses for amenities provided to land purchasers were capital or revenue in nature. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the Assessee, emphasizing that the amenities were for all plot owners and that the ownership did not remain with the firm, except for specific cases. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) decision, stating that the Revenue failed to challenge the CIT(A) findings or provide additional evidence. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A) order.