2014 (1) TMI 335 - AT - Income Tax

Method of revenue recognition in business of real estate development - Held that - Following assessee s own case for the A.Y. 2006-07 - Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the similar addition - Assessee has been following particular system of accounting for revenue recognition which has been mentioned in the Accounting Policies filed alongwith the return of income for the year under consideration as well as for earlier years - When assessee has been following the particular system of accounting consistently, Assessing Officer has chosen to depart from the accepted method of accounting of the assessee without putting forth the cogent reasoning - In respect of properties for which the addition has been made in this year, the sales has been recognised in the subsequent years - Following CIT vs. Excel Industries 2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT - When in earlier asstt. years the revenue accepted the order of the tribunal in favour of the assessee, then Revenue cannot be allowed to flip flop on the issue and it ought let the matter rest rather than spend the tax payers money in pursuing litigation for the sake of it - In the subsequent accounting year, assessee has disclosed the income and paid tax thereon and if the rate of tax remained the same in the present asstt. year as well as in the subsequent asstt. year, the dispute raised by the Revenue was entirely academic or at best may have a minor tax effect Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 34,20,797/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of advances from customers/buyers.
2. Applicability of Accounting Standard-7 for revenue recognition in the case of the assessee.
3. Consistency in the system of accounting for revenue recognition by the assessee.
4. Deletion of similar addition by the Ld. CIT(A) in the earlier assessment year.
5. Judicial precedent and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Excel Industries.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 34,20,797/- as deemed sale in respect of 22 specific properties due to the method of revenue recognition under Accounting Standard-7. The Assessing Officer treated advances against properties with NIL outstanding balances as sales, resulting in additional income for the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee had consistently followed a specific system of accounting for revenue recognition, as reflected in the Accounting Policies filed with the return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) referred to the relevant orders of the predecessor for the assessment year 2006-07, where a similar addition was made and subsequently deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) analyzed the Accounting Standards and concluded that AS-7 was not applicable to the assessee's case as it pertains to construction contracts, which did not apply to the present scenario.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the facts in the current year were akin to the earlier years, including the assessment year 2006-07, where the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the consistency in the system of accounting for revenue recognition by the assessee and consequently deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

4. The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and records, acknowledging that the assessee had consistently followed a particular system of accounting for revenue recognition. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer deviated from the accepted method without providing substantial reasoning. Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that sales for the properties in question were recognized in subsequent years, similar to the preceding assessment year where the Ld. CIT(A) had deleted a similar addition.

5. Referring to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Excel Industries, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of consistency in judicial decisions and the acceptance of tribunal orders in favor of the assessee in earlier assessment years. The Tribunal concluded that there was no flaw in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and upheld the decision based on judicial precedent and the principle of maintaining consistency in tax matters.

Overall, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, affirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 34,20,797/- based on the consistent system of accounting for revenue recognition followed by the assessee and the legal principles established in relevant judicial precedents.