2024 (2) TMI 638 - AT - Income Tax

Unaccounted investment u/s. 69C - assessee could not substantiate its claim had inflated the cost of WIP without incurring any expenses so as to claim higher deduction u/s. 80IB - CIT(A) deleted the addition - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that the whole confusion is because that the assessee has taken the total booking amount (creditors) as closing are in work in progress and the balancing figure was offered by the assessee as cost profit and the balancing figure was taken by the AO as unexplained investment. Thus, the CIT(A) was right in deleting this addition thereby holding that the amount of unexplained income has already been offered for tax as gross profits of the respective projects and therefore the question of invoking section 69C is not warranted. There is no need to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Deduction u/s. 80IB(10) - non filling of return on time - as argued merely because return of income is not filed within the time limit prescribed u/s. 139(1) that by itself cannot be the reason for rejecting the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) - HELD THAT - In the present case, the assessee is claiming deduction u/s. 80IB(10) and the Income Tax Statute u/s. 80IB(10) is also uses the word shall and therefore the condition of filing the return of income within the due date is mandatory in nature. Though the decision of H.P. Housing and Urban Development 2023 (12) TMI 1267 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT states that the assessee is entitled to claim specifically the computed deductions despite late filing of belated return of income, in the present case, the statutory date for filing the return of income was that of 30-09-2007 and the search operations took place on 19-02-2005 and the details were available in the month of Nov, 2006 as stated by the assessee before the CIT(A) as well as before us. The reasoning given by the assessee that within a period of six months from the date of filing of return of income for assessment year 2006- 07, the assessee have filed return of income for assessment year 2007-08 will not help the assessee as the assessee was very well aware of mandatory date of filing the original return of income. The plea of Assessee that within short time the assessee cannot file return will not come to rescue the assessee because the records were available with the assessee before the due date of filing return for A.Y. 2007-08. - Decided against assessee. Addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) - non deduction of tds - as submitted amount of expenses on which TDS has not been paid and disallowed by the assessee himself in assessment year 2006-07 which are not paid and claimed in the present year - HELD THAT - Though it appears that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the said amount for assessment year 2006-07 and whether the same is now paid and claimed in the present year and how that has to be quantified needs verification. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the same and if entitled grant the credit of the same as per income tax statute to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Ground allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made by AO on account of unaccounted investment u/s. 69C.
2. Rejection of books of accounts u/s. 145.
3. Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80IB(10).
4. Compliance with provisions of section 80AC.
5. Developer status and approval of plans.
6. Reliability of certificate in Form 10CCB.
7. Accounting method for revenue recognition and valuation of stock.
8. Addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) for expenses on which TDS has not been paid.

Summary:

Issue 1: Deletion of Addition u/s. 69C
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,80,13,924/- made by the AO on account of unaccounted investment u/s. 69C. The AO had disallowed the amount, considering it unexplained income due to inflated costs of work in progress. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the amount had already been offered for tax as gross profits, thus invoking section 69C was unwarranted. The appeal by the Revenue on this ground was dismissed.

Issue 2: Rejection of Books of Accounts u/s. 145
The assessee's appeal challenged the rejection of its books of accounts u/s. 145. The Tribunal found this issue academic in light of its decision on the compliance with section 80AC, and thus, dismissed this ground.

Issue 3: Disallowance of Deduction u/s. 80IB(10)
The assessee argued that the delay in filing the return was due to genuine reasons, including search operations and attachment of bank accounts. However, the Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of the filing deadline u/s. 80AC, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Wipro Ltd. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal on this ground, holding that the statutory date for filing the return must be adhered to.

Issue 4: Compliance with Section 80AC
The Tribunal reiterated that the condition of filing the return within the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) is mandatory for claiming deductions u/s. 80IB(10). Despite the assessee's genuine reasons for delay, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) and AO's decision, dismissing the appeal on this ground.

Issue 5: Developer Status and Plan Approval
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately, as it was rendered academic by the decision on section 80AC compliance.

Issue 6: Reliability of Form 10CCB Certificate
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately, as it was rendered academic by the decision on section 80AC compliance.

Issue 7: Accounting Method for Revenue Recognition
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately, as it was rendered academic by the decision on section 80AC compliance.

Issue 8: Addition u/s. 40(a)(ia)
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 12,99,159/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) for expenses on which TDS had not been paid. The Tribunal remanded this issue back to the AO for verification, directing that if the expenses were indeed paid and claimed in the present year, the AO should grant the appropriate credit. This ground was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal's order was pronounced in the open court on 09-02-2024.

← Previous Next →