2017 (11) TMI 564 - AT - Income Tax

Re working profit from the project - AO has assessed the total income of the partnership firm till the date of dissolution on the basis of closing work-in-progress as on the date of dissolution of the firm - CIT(A) re-worked the profit from the project by taking into account total receipts from the project and applied project completion method to determine the income subject to verification of assessee s claim with regard to parking space / escalation recovery - Held that - We are of the view that the CIT(A) was right in re-working profit from the project on the basis of project completion method. We do not find any error in the order of CIT(A); hence, we are inclined to uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 148.
2. Taxability of income in AY 2003-04.
3. Determination of total income at ?27,39,68,175/-.
4. Completion status of the Chaitanya Tower project.
5. Taxation of profit already taxed in another entity.
6. Inclusion of ?6,90,70,122/- in gross receipts.
7. Inclusion of ?3,98,74,600/- in gross receipts.
8. Deduction of expenditure of ?79,55,64,006/-.
9. Deletion of total income determined.
10. Levy of interest under Section 234B.
11. Levy of interest under Section 234A.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 148:
The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the notice issued under Section 148, finding that the assessee had not filed a return for AY 2003-04 despite significant sales. The AO had reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, justifying the reopening. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's arguments, stating that the notice was correctly issued in the name of the dissolved firm, Pratiksha Enterprises, as per Section 170(1). The ITAT agreed with this reasoning, confirming the reopening of the assessment.

2. Taxability of Income in AY 2003-04:
The CIT(A) determined that the income from the Chaitanya Tower project should be taxed in AY 2003-04. The project was substantially complete by the date of dissolution, and the income accrued to the assessee should be assessed for the period up to 01.09.2002. The ITAT upheld this finding, rejecting the assessee's contention that the income should be taxed in the hands of Twinkle Property Developers Pvt. Ltd.

3. Determination of Total Income at ?27,39,68,175/-:
The CIT(A) reworked the profit from the project using the project completion method, determining the total income at ?25,51,58,334/-, subject to verification of certain claims. If the claims were incorrect, the profit would be ?27,39,68,175/-. The ITAT found no error in this reworking and upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

4. Completion Status of the Chaitanya Tower Project:
The CIT(A) concluded that the project was 96.59% complete by the date of dissolution. This was based on the expenditure incurred and the receipts from the project. The ITAT agreed with this assessment, noting that the project was either complete or substantially complete as of 01.09.2002.

5. Taxation of Profit Already Taxed in Another Entity:
The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's argument that the profit from the Chaitanya Tower project was already taxed in the hands of Twinkle Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. The ITAT concurred, stating that the income accrued to the assessee up to the date of dissolution must be taxed in its hands, and Twinkle could seek exclusion of this income from its total income as per law.

6. Inclusion of ?6,90,70,122/- in Gross Receipts:
The CIT(A) included ?6,90,70,122/- as part of the gross receipts, determining that this amount related to the sale of flats in the project. The ITAT upheld this inclusion, finding no error in the CIT(A)'s reasoning.

7. Inclusion of ?3,98,74,600/- in Gross Receipts:
Similarly, the CIT(A) included ?3,98,74,600/- in the gross receipts, which was also upheld by the ITAT. This amount was related to the recovery towards the cost of construction.

8. Deduction of Expenditure of ?79,55,64,006/-:
The CIT(A) allowed the deduction of ?79,55,64,006/- in computing the total income, as this expenditure was incurred for the completion of the project. The ITAT found no error in this deduction and upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

9. Deletion of Total Income Determined:
The CIT(A) reworked the total income based on the project completion method and subject to verification of certain claims. The ITAT upheld this reworking, dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.

10. Levy of Interest Under Section 234B:
The CIT(A) confirmed the levy of interest under Section 234B, which was upheld by the ITAT. The assessee's liability for interest was found to be justified.

11. Levy of Interest Under Section 234A:
Similarly, the CIT(A) confirmed the levy of interest under Section 234A, which was also upheld by the ITAT. The assessee's liability for interest was found to be justified.

Conclusion:
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order on all grounds, confirming the validity of the notice under Section 148, the taxability of income in AY 2003-04, the determination of total income, the completion status of the project, and the inclusion of specific amounts in gross receipts. The ITAT also upheld the deduction of expenditure and the levies of interest under Sections 234B and 234A, dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.

← Previous Next →