2017 (4) TMI 826 - HC - Income Tax

Escapement of income - method of accounting followed - Held that - According to us, as indicated right at the outset, it is not disputed by the Revenue that the Assessee has been consistently following the Project Completion Method , for accounting its income. It is also, not disputed before us, by the learned counsel for the Revenue that, except for the assessment years in issue, the said method of accounting has not been assailed by the Revenue.There is no dispute that the project has not been completed as yet. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, in particular, that the method of accounting followed by the appellant is a recognised method of accounting, which has not led to escapment of income, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal. No substantial question of law.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals challenging the judgment and order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the method of accounting followed by the Assessee for Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contesting the Tribunal's decision to uphold the Assessee's Project Completion Method over the Revenue's proposed Percentage of Completion Method. The Assessee, a developer, consistently followed the Project Completion Method, which was not disputed by the Revenue. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal's decision was distinguishable based on the transfer of land to prospective owners. The Assessing Officer added income to the Assessee based on the Percentage of Completion Method, which was replicated in subsequent years. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's method, but the Tribunal overturned it, emphasizing the legitimacy of the Assessee's accounting method.

The Tribunal's observations highlighted the dispute between the Project Completion Method and Percentage of Completion Method for profit computation. The Tribunal supported the Assessee's consistent use of the Project Completion Method, citing relevant legal precedents. It emphasized that the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate how the Assessee's method resulted in underestimation of profits. The Tribunal recognized the Completed Project Method as a valid accounting approach and noted that the Assessee's method was consistent and not defective, warranting no rejection or estimation of profits using a different method.

The Revenue contended that the Tribunal should have upheld the Assessing Officer's method due to the land transfer to owners and the method's realism in assessing the Assessee's income. However, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, considering the Assessee's consistent use of the recognized Project Completion Method and the absence of income escapement. The Court deemed the accounting method reasonable and recognized, dismissing the appeals without costs, as no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the Tribunal's decision in favor of the Assessee's Project Completion Method, emphasizing consistency, legitimacy, and reasonableness of the accounting approach, while rejecting the Revenue's challenge based on land transfer and realism in income assessment.