9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 337 - AT - Income TaxClaim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) - assessee is engaged in the business of promoters and builders executing various construction schemes for commercial / residential complex - This is the third year of the project and project is close to completion (around 80%) - the assessee did not offer any income on account of this project in the earlier assessment years and never claimed the deduction till this year. The assessee followed the project completion method till last year - CIT-A allowed the claim - HELD THAT - CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee appreciating the assessee‟s explanation relating to some glitches in the software. The said para of CIT(A)‟s order does not have reasons for accepting patent discrepancies appeared in the Profit and Loss Accounts and statement of accounts, dates in the audit reports, etc. No reason is given for the anti-dated Form No.10CCB. Further, no details are given for justifying the differences in the sales figure, no reasons are given for accepting change in method of accounting. In our opinion, such an order of CIT(A) is not in tune with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act and therefore, should be unacceptable. Therefore, we are of the opinion the matter should be remanded to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issues and direct the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order attending to the aforesaid discrepancies with reference to the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, on one side and requirement of filing the return on the other side or change in accounting method, as the case may be. The CIT(A) shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee while re-adjudicating the aforesaid issues. Thus, the grounds raised by Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of deduction claim under Section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Change in the method of accounting from completion method to percentage completion method. 3. Filing of a revised return and the discrepancies in the audit report and Form No.10CCB. 4. The completeness and adequacy of the order issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Deduction Claim Under Section 80IB(10): The primary issue revolves around the Assessing Officer's (AO) rejection of the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, engaged in the business of promoters and builders, initially did not claim this deduction in the original return filed on 29.09.2011. However, in the revised return filed on 31.03.2013, the assessee claimed the deduction. The AO rejected this claim due to discrepancies in the audit report and Form No.10CCB, which was filed in support of the deduction claim. The discrepancies included mismatched figures in the Balance Sheet and manually filled or blank entries in Form No.10CCB. 2. Change in the Method of Accounting: The assessee changed the method of accounting from the project completion method to the percentage completion method during the assessment year under consideration. This change was significant because it affected the recognition of income and the subsequent claim for deduction under Section 80IB(10). The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that the CIT(A) did not adequately discuss the reasons for this change in the method of accounting while granting relief to the assessee. 3. Filing of Revised Return and Discrepancies in Audit Report and Form No.10CCB: The revised return filed by the assessee included a claim for deduction under Section 80IB(10), supported by an audit report and Form No.10CCB. The DR highlighted several discrepancies in these documents, including mismatched figures and dates, and questioned the validity of the audit report, which was allegedly prepared before the finalization of accounts. The assessee argued that these were technical mistakes that were corrected during the assessment proceedings and should not be grounds for disallowing the deduction. 4. Completeness and Adequacy of the CIT(A)'s Order: The DR contended that the CIT(A)'s order was incomplete and not a "speaking order" as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee without addressing the core issues and discrepancies highlighted by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not provide reasons for accepting the discrepancies in the Profit and Loss Accounts, audit reports, and Form No.10CCB. Consequently, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be unsatisfactory and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s order was not in compliance with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act and required re-adjudication. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) with instructions to pass a speaking order addressing the discrepancies and providing reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in the open Court on 5th March, 2020.
|
