2017 (10) TMI 1459 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - disallowing the provision for development expenses made by the assessee - HELD THAT - The first finding of the ld. CIT is to the effect that assessment order has been passed in a casual manner and without application of mind. In our consideration with the above correspondence, evidence and discussions during the course of assessment proceedings do not substantiate these adverse observations of ld. CIT. Consequently we are unable to agree that assessment order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue on this score. Apropos the allowability of JDA development charges as business expenditure, ld. CIT has no objection on assessee's following mercantile system of accounting in that eventuality even the accrued liabilities are to be allowed. Assessee has demonstrated that per square yard working of JDA expenses was provided to ld. AO during the assessment proceedings which is part of the record. Once the liability is accrued as per JDA circulars and AO allows the claim based on working provided by assessee; it demonstratively means that AO allowed the claim after due application of mind. Ld. CIT has not even disputed that liability is allowable as clearance has been give about liability qua the sale proceeds offered. It has been lost sight of that assessee follows mercantile method, liability is statutory and working of quantum is provided. With all this available on record we hold that the assessment order can neither be called as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Our views are fortified by the catena of judgments cited above, consequently the 263 order is quashed and assessee's grounds are allowed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the CIT's order and quashing the finding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
2. Whether the Tribunal and CIT(A) were justified in quashing the assessment order and deleting the disallowance of development expenses without proper application of mind.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Tribunal in Setting Aside CIT's Order:
The Tribunal's decision to set aside the CIT's order was based on its finding that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal noted that the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, and the accrued liabilities were to be allowed. The Tribunal observed that the AO had allowed the claim based on the working provided by the assessee, demonstrating that the AO had applied his mind. The Tribunal held that the assessment order could neither be called erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal's views were supported by several judgments, including CIT v. Max India Ltd., which clarified that not every loss of revenue due to an AO's order can be treated as prejudicial to the interests of revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law.

2. Quashing of Assessment Order and Deletion of Disallowance of Development Expenses:
The Tribunal and CIT(A) quashed the assessment order and deleted the disallowance of development expenses by relying on the earlier order of the Tribunal. The Court noted that the assessee, being a coloniser/builder, followed the JDA scheme for private townships, which required the coloniser to develop internal infrastructure without charging separate fees from plot buyers. The assessee's liability to develop the land accrued as soon as the sale of a plot was made, and the provision for development expenses was made accordingly. The Appellate Authorities found that these development expenses were an ascertained committed legal liability. The Court cited several judgments, including CIT v. Rajiv Arora and CIT v. Deepak Real Estate Developers, which emphasized that the CIT must provide clear findings that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Court also referenced CIT v. Sunbeam Auto, which distinguished between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry, stating that the latter does not justify the exercise of revisional powers under Section 263.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Tribunal and CIT(A) were justified in their decisions. The assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, and the development expenses were a legitimate business expenditure. The Court reiterated that the CIT's revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 requires a clear finding that the AO's order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, which was not established in this case.