9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 843 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153C - Addition under the head Income from business and profession - HELD THAT - Earlier Assessment Years were framed u/s 153C of the Act and the assessee had challenged the very assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act which has been decided in favour of the assessee by the CIT(A)/ITAT/High Court. Since the assessment order itself was quashed, there was no occasion to consider the merits of the case. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has accepted the view of the Assessing Officer. Earlier assessments were framed u/s 153C of the Act which ware quashed by the appellate authorities. Therefore, we find force in the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee that there was no occasion to dwell into the merits of the case. The factual matrix clearly shows that the assessee has followed a well recognized method of accounting following a notified accounting standard u/s 145 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) mentioned elsewhere. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 are accordingly dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the CIT(A)'s order. 2. Deletion of addition by estimating profit on the percentage completion method. 3. Basis for assessing contract receipts/advances on the percentage completion method. 4. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained creditors. 5. Consideration of additional evidence without allowing AO to comment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the CIT(A)'s Order: The Revenue contended that the order of the CIT(A) was incorrect in law and facts. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and the CIT(A)'s detailed analysis, found no error or infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings. The CIT(A) had carefully considered the submissions, assessment order, and relevant judgments, concluding that the method of accounting followed by the assessee was consistent and recognized under section 145 of the Act. 2. Deletion of Addition by Estimating Profit on the Percentage Completion Method: The CIT(A) deleted the addition of ?8,62,95,509/- made by the AO by estimating profit on the percentage completion method (PCM). The CIT(A) noted that the assessee followed the Completed Contract Method (CCM), which is a recognized accounting method under Accounting Standard 7 (AS-7). The CIT(A) cited judgments from the Supreme Court, which held that both PCM and CCM are recognized methods, and the AO cannot change the method of accounting consistently followed by the assessee unless it is defective or does not present a true picture of profits. 3. Basis for Assessing Contract Receipts/Advances on the Percentage Completion Method: The CIT(A) observed that the AO had no basis for assessing contract receipts/advances on PCM. The AO's addition was based on an erroneous interpretation of the Guidance Note 2006 from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The CIT(A) emphasized that the assessee consistently followed CCM, which is recognized and accepted in real estate development. The AO did not provide any material evidence to show that the assessee's method was defective or inconsistent. 4. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Creditors: The AO made an addition of ?28,34,206/- for unexplained creditors, as no confirmation was filed for two vendors: Service First Aircon Pvt Ltd and Pradhan Plumbing Systems. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, noting that the AO did not raise any questions about transactions with these parties in prior assessments under section 153C/143(3) of the Act. The CIT(A) found no evidence suggesting these suppliers were bogus. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the transactions with these parties were regular and not doubted by the AO throughout the year, thus there was no reason to add the closing balance. 5. Consideration of Additional Evidence Without Allowing AO to Comment: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition based on additional evidence without allowing the AO to comment. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered all relevant facts and submissions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO did not provide any material evidence to counter the assessee's consistent method of accounting. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order and findings. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee consistently followed a recognized method of accounting, and the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to warrant a change in the method or to justify the additions made.
|
