2018 (11) TMI 321 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - assessment under project completion method - AO s order is erroneous as the same was accepted without proper enquiries/ verification and causing prejudice to the interest of the revenue - Held that - There is no change in method for computing profit rather the assessee is consistently following percentage completion method and even in future years, the Revenue has accepted the same method without any tinkering. In the present case before us, the entire details were filed before AO and AO after going through the details has passed the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act. The completed Projection completion method was explained before the AO by assessee vide letter dated 05.01.2015 filed during the course of assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act. The AO has gone into the details and made enquiry about the completed project completion method and made assessment thereafter. There is no other possible view taken by the AO because this view has been confirmed by Hon ble Bombay High Court and also Tribunal consistent taken a view that the assessee s consistent method for determining income is completed project completion method and there is no change in the same. Once, this is the position there is no question of revision. Hence, in the given facts and circumstances, we quash the revision order passed by PCIT and allow the appeal of the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the revision order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Examination of the method of accounting and its implications on tax computation.
3. Verification of interest expenses and their allocation to work-in-progress.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Revision Order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The core issue in this appeal is the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contends that the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessee argues that the PCIT grossly erred in setting aside the assessment made by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act and directing a fresh assessment.

2. Examination of the Method of Accounting and Its Implications on Tax Computation:
The PCIT issued a show-cause notice stating that the assessee was historically maintaining its accounts and computing profits using the Percentage Completion Method (PCM) but changed to the Completed Contract Method (CCM) for tax purposes in the year under consideration. This change allegedly resulted in the avoidance of revenue recognition amounting to ?50,04,70,011. The PCIT observed that the AO failed to carry out relevant and meaningful enquiries regarding this change and its implications on tax computation.

The assessee, in its defense, provided detailed explanations and historical consistency in using different methods for financial statements and tax purposes. The assessee cited past assessments and judicial precedents, including the Tribunal and High Court rulings, which upheld the use of the Completed Contract Method (CCM) for tax purposes.

3. Verification of Interest Expenses and Their Allocation to Work-in-Progress:
The PCIT also noted that the AO did not examine the interest expenses amounting to ?16,93,62,309, which were transferred to work-in-progress. The assessee explained that the interest expenditure claimed under section 36(1)(iii) read with section 43B of the Act was disclosed in its return of income. The interest was allocated to various projects based on utilization, and only the balance was charged to the Profit and Loss account.

The AO, after reviewing the details and explanations provided by the assessee, accepted the method of accounting and the allocation of interest expenses. The Tribunal observed that the AO had made proper enquiries and was satisfied with the assessee's claims.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that there was no change in the method of computing profit, and the assessee consistently followed the Percentage Completion Method (PCM) for financial statements and the Completed Contract Method (CCM) for tax purposes. This method had been accepted in past assessments and confirmed by judicial precedents. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had conducted a thorough examination and made enquiries before completing the assessment.

The Tribunal concluded that the AO's view was a possible view, and the revision order under section 263 was not justified. The Tribunal quashed the revision order passed by the PCIT and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

Order:
The appeal of the assessee is allowed. The revision order passed by the PCIT is quashed. The AO's assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act is upheld.

← Previous Next →