9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Assessing Officer that during the year, the assessee firm has sold a plot of land for ₹ 1,25,00,000/-. Against the sale consideration, the expense claimed are cost of land ₹ 30,62,154/-, Administration Other Expenses ₹ 28,80,209/- and Brought Forward expenditure not pertaining to the current financial year ₹ 41,47,255/-. In all, an expenditure of ₹ 1,00,89,618/- has been claimed against the sale proceeds. The assessee was asked to show as to how the brought forward expenditure of ₹ 41,47,255/- not pertaining to the year under consideration is admissible. At the same time, out of the Administrative Other expenses, there is an accumulated claim of interest of ₹ 17,43,036/-. The majority of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder u/s.143(3) has been passed by the Assessing Officer on 31.03.1997. In this scrutiny assessment also, nowhere it is stated or mentioned that assessee is following cash system of accounting. The Assessing Officer on going through the details filed, observed that the interest on the loans borrowed have been paid from year to year with tax deducted at source. A ledger account of all the loan creditors have been furnished to indicate that the interest being paid from year to year and a separate account is maintained each year. He further observed that in the return of income filed earlier to Assessment Year 2006-07, nowhere it is mentioned that expense incurred are being accumulated and shown as work-in-progress. The losses incurred on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ense have been shown as capitalised which are mainly interest expenditure and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to compute the income on the basis of Project Completion Method. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us challenging in all the grounds the direction of the learned CIT(A) to compute the income under Project Completion Method and in deleting the disallowance of brought forward expense ₹ 47,41,255/- and administration and other expenses of ₹ 13 lakhs. 5. At the time of hearing the ld DR submits that for the reasons as mentioned in the assessment order, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to compute the income on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find that there is no iota evidence to show that the assessee has carried out any construction on the said plot of land and this fact has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the assessee at the time of present hearing that no construction has been taken place on the said plot of land. It was also admitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that the land was shown by the assessee as stock-in-trade and same was sold in the year under consideration. In this view of the matter and keeping in view that no construction activity has been carried out by the assessee after acquisition of land in the year 1987 and cost of land was treated by the assessee as stock-in-trade, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) was not justifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
