9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 1170 - AT - Income TaxTaxability of on money receipts - Method of accounting - assessee is found to have received on money from the buyer of flats/properties on the basis of documents which have been found during the course of search and the on money received by the assessee - HELD THAT - On money received by the assessee would only be taxable as per the regular method of accounting of the assessee. In the present case the assessee is following project completion method and therefore this income has to be assessed along with the regular income of the assessee in the year of completion of the project. Addition equal to 25% of the on money received - At what rate of the on money should be brought to tax? - CIT(A) is not correct in not following the order of settlement commission wherein a rate of 12% has been applied on the on money to assess income embedded therein. Accordingly we modify the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to assess the on money @ 12% as per the system of accounting followed by the assessee as has been decided by us in ground No.1.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?53,75,000 as income from on-money. 2. Year of assessability for the on-money. 3. Rate of estimation for the on-money. Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of ?53,75,000 as Income from On-Money: The assessee contested the addition of ?53,75,000, which was 25% of the alleged on-money of ?2,15,00,000. The correct amount of on-money was ?1.50 crore, making 25% equal to ?37.50 lakhs. The assessee argued that income from on-money should be taxed only in the year when the project is completed, as per the Revised Guidance Note of 2012 issued by ICAI. The CIT(A) had confirmed the addition based on the year of receipt, which the assessee claimed was unjustified. 2. Year of Assessability for the On-Money: The assessee maintained that the income from on-money should be assessed in the year of project completion, following the project completion method of accounting. The AO had added ?2,15,00,000 under section 68 of the Act, but the correct amount was ?1,50,00,000. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal regarding the non-taxability of the on-money in the year of completion, holding it should be taxed in the year of receipt. The assessee cited multiple case laws supporting the argument that income should be assessed in the year of project completion. 3. Rate of Estimation for the On-Money: The CIT(A) had sustained the addition at 25% of the on-money received. The assessee argued for a 12% rate, as accepted by the Settlement Commission for the assessee's group entities. The Tribunal found the assessee's argument convincing and directed the AO to apply a 12% rate on ?1,50,00,000, aligning with the Settlement Commission's decision. The Tribunal cited various decisions supporting the assessment of income based on the method of accounting followed by the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the AO to assess the on-money at 12% in the year of project completion, as per the project completion method of accounting. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed as it became infructuous following the Tribunal's decision on the assessee's appeal. Final Orders: - The appeal of the assessee is allowed. - The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
|
