2014 (9) TMI 20 - HC - Income Tax

Pre-operative expenses Genuineness of expenses proved - Held that - Assessee-company was formed on 26.10.2007 and had entered into an agreement with Wellworth Homes (P) Ltd. on 05.11.07 for purchase of land measuring 7.781 acres in Village Dharuhera, Tehsil and District Riwani, Haryana - assessee became absolute and exclusive owner of the land and licenses were granted for development of the land - For purchase of the land with licenses and approvals, expenditure was incurred and the payments had been made AO was of the view that the project was at the initial stage - the project had taken off and commenced - The expenditure incurred is not in dispute and is not projected as bogus or fictitious in nature - the AO did not follow or apply AS-7 for computing the income and has not commented why AS-2 applied by the assessee was not applicable the amount had to be carried forward and taken into consideration in the next year etc. - Details for assessment of the next year are not on record though opportunity was granted to Revenue to place the details Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Capitalization of expenditure incurred on a project.
2. Application of Accounting Standards 2 and 7.
3. Assessment of income based on project stage.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the Revenue challenged the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the expenditure incurred by the assessee on a project for the assessment year 2009-10. The Revenue contended that the expenditure should have been capitalized as pre-operative expenditure since the project was at an initial stage. The Assessing Officer observed that all expenses should be treated as capital expenditure, but the assessee argued that Accounting Standard 7 did not apply and the costs should be immediately charged off to the Profit and Loss Account. The Assessing Officer did not provide specific reasons for treating the expenses as capital in nature.

2. The Tribunal found that the project had commenced, as evidenced by the receipts and expenditures incurred. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal both ruled in favor of the assessee, noting that Accounting Standard 7 was not applicable at the stage of the project. The Tribunal accepted that the project had started, and Accounting Standard 7 was not invoked by the Assessing Officer to compute the income. The Tribunal upheld the decision in favor of the assessee, considering the stage of the project and the application of Accounting Standard 7.

3. The Tribunal highlighted that the Assessing Officer acknowledged the commencement of the project by stating the receipts received and the non-capitalization of a specific amount. The Assessing Officer did not follow Accounting Standard 7 for income computation and did not address why the assessee's application of Accounting Standard 2 was deemed inapplicable. The assessee declared a loss, which had to be carried forward for the next year, but details for the subsequent assessment were not provided. The Tribunal, based on the findings and lack of interference necessity, dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision in favor of the assessee.