2012 (5) TMI 148 - AT - Income Tax

Method of accounting - Treatment of advance received from customers as sales - Application of AS-7 to construction contractors and to builder or real estate developers. - The findings of the Assessing Officer for including the sale proceeds of the plots/floors in respect of which assessee has received advances. However, sale deeds have not been registered in this year. Now, the case of the Assessing Officer is that merely on account of non-registration of sale deed, it cannot be construed that transaction has not been completed between the parties. The assessee cannot defer or postpone the recognition of the revenue in respect of these plots. - held that - In the case of assessee, it is a developer and recognized the sale of the plots on execution of the conveyance deed duly registered. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we do not find any reason to change the method of accounting in this year which was accepted in the past. The A.O. has not assigned any reason for this change. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Issues Involved:

1. Erroneous and contrary order by CIT(A).
2. Deletion of addition by CIT(A) in violation of Rule 46A.
3. Applicability of AS-7 to the assessee.
4. Consistency in the method of accounting.
5. Alleged sham transaction with sister concern.
6. Deletion of addition relating to expenditure pending adjustment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Erroneous and Contrary Order by CIT(A):

The revenue's general ground that the CIT(A)'s order is erroneous and contrary to facts and law was rejected as no arguments were addressed on this ground.

2. Deletion of Addition by CIT(A) in Violation of Rule 46A:

The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,09,68,000 by entertaining additional evidence violating Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The assessee, a company engaged in township development, followed the partial project completion method for revenue recognition. The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that the assessee should have recognized revenue for properties where full advances were received, despite no sale deeds being registered. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that AS-7 applies to construction contractors, not real estate developers, and emphasized consistency in the accounting method accepted in prior years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no violation of Rule 46A and noting that the AO did not provide sufficient reasons to change the accounting method.

3. Applicability of AS-7 to the Assessee:

The AO argued that the assessee should follow AS-7, which mandates the percentage completion method for developers. The assessee contended that AS-7 applies only to construction contractors, not developers. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, stating that AS-7's scope is limited to construction contracts in the financial statements of contractors. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the assessee's method of accounting was consistent and accepted in prior years.

4. Consistency in the Method of Accounting:

The assessee argued that its method of accounting had been consistently accepted by the revenue in prior years (2003-04 to 2005-06). The Tribunal emphasized the principle of consistency, citing judgments that the department cannot change the method of accounting if it has been consistently followed and accepted in prior years unless it does not reflect true and correct profit. The Tribunal found no reason to change the method of accounting for the current year.

5. Alleged Sham Transaction with Sister Concern:

The AO contended that the transaction between the assessee and its sister concern, involving the transfer of booking rights for plots and condominiums, was a sham. The AO added the sale proceeds of these properties to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, accepting the assessee's argument that it was a genuine business transaction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no evidence of collusion or tax evasion and noting that the AO failed to provide reasons for deeming the transaction a sham.

6. Deletion of Addition Relating to Expenditure Pending Adjustment:

The assessee contended that the AO wrongly added Rs. 7,05,66,000 as expenditure pending adjustment, which was not claimed as a deduction. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's claim, noting that the AO had already excluded the amount in a rectification order under section 154. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim, stating that the amount could not be added if it was not claimed as an expense, thus preventing double addition.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all contested issues. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of consistency in accounting methods and the proper application of accounting standards, rejecting the AO's contentions and additions.

← Previous Next →