9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 133 - AT - Income TaxOn-money received by the assessee over and above amounts stated in the regular books of accounts - Held that - On account of any reason project could not be completed, then the assessee would be required to refund the money, and in that situation, on-money would also be refunded. Thus, the right to receive or retain this component was subject to the execution of the sale deed or handing over of the possession. This aspect has been clarified by the partners even while admitting the income. The ld.AO has been unnecessarily ignoring that part of the statement. It is also pertinent to observe that the title in the property would be transferred not in the year in which the assessee received part consideration as earnest money, but it is to be construed in the year, when the sales was registered or possession was handed over to the prospective buyers. As decided in Shivalik Buildwell 2012 (10) TMI 1019 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT as per the accounting standard available, the assessee was entitled to claim the entire income on completion of the project and if such accounting standard was accepted by the revenue in the earlier years, in the present year, the Assessing Officer could not have taken a different stand and that too, without hearing the assessee Apart from the above, the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the ground that same amount cannot be taxed twice because this very amount has been offered for taxation in different years and the same rate of tax is applicable upon the assessee. Thus, taking into consideration well reasoned finding of the ld.CIT(A) extracted (supra), we do not see any reasons to interfere in it. Appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of ?24,90,44,067/-. 2. Taxability of unaccounted income (on-money). 3. Rejection of the books of accounts under section 145(3). 4. Year of taxability of the disclosed income. 5. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition of ?24,90,44,067/-: The Revenue's main grievance was the deletion of the addition of ?24,90,44,067/- by the CIT(A). The AO had added this amount as unaccounted income based on the statement of a partner during a survey. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, reasoning that the unaccounted income related to various projects and could not be taxed solely in the assessment year 2011-12. The CIT(A) noted that the unaccounted income should be taxed when the sale deeds are executed or possession is delivered, aligning with the accounting standards and judicial precedents. 2. Taxability of Unaccounted Income (On-Money): During the survey, the assessee admitted to unaccounted income of ?26.05 crores, which was not reflected in the books of accounts. The AO treated this as income for the year 2011-12. However, the CIT(A) held that this amount represented advances received and should be taxed in the years when the corresponding projects are completed and the sale deeds are executed. The CIT(A) emphasized that income accrues when the sale is completed, not when advances are received. 3. Rejection of the Books of Accounts Under Section 145(3): The AO rejected the books of accounts under section 145(3), citing that the books did not present a correct and complete picture of the business. The AO argued that the unaccounted income was not reflected in the books. However, the CIT(A) found that the method of accounting followed by the assessee was consistent and accepted in previous years. The CIT(A) noted that the AO did not point out specific defects in the books or the method of accounting. 4. Year of Taxability of the Disclosed Income: The CIT(A) and the Tribunal agreed that the disclosed income of ?26.05 crores should not be taxed solely in the assessment year 2011-12. The CIT(A) reasoned that the income would accrue when the sale deeds are executed or possession is delivered, aligning with the accounting standards and judicial precedents. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the right to retain the on-money would crystallize upon the completion of the projects. 5. Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c): The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing income. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal focused on the year of taxability rather than the penalty. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which did not specifically address the penalty proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal agreed that the unaccounted income should be taxed in the years when the corresponding projects are completed and the sale deeds are executed, not solely in the assessment year 2011-12. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s well-reasoned findings.
|
