9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) of Act, on 27/03/2015, determining its income at Rs. 3. 93 crores. 2. Vide its application, dtd. 7/12/2017, the assessee company has made a request for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The application is accompanied by an affidavit dated 13/10/ 2017 of Arun N. Jhaveri, one of the Directors. In the application and the affidavit, it is stated that due to stalemate and restrained relationship among the directors of the company and nonavailablility of Vinod Bathia, who had access to necessary details, the assessee could not file the appeal before the Tribunal in time, that the strained relationship of directors was visible from the fact that returns for the AY. s 2016-17 and 2017-18 were not filed till October 2017, that the delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d only one project at Kandivili West, that the project consisted of residential and commercial projects, that the closing WIP was shown at Rs. 7. 31 crores, that WIP included residential and commercial projects that the project was completed, that the assessee had booked sales of 66. 75% of the commercial portion and 96. 92% of residential portion in the earlier years(till end of AY. 2012-13), that the closing WIP valued at Rs. 7. 31 crores represent - ed value of balance of commercial and residential component of the project which includes the residential and commercial project, that the project was completed and the assessee had booked sales of 66. 75% of the commercial and 96. 92% of the residential portion in earlier years and till the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es to Ganesh Tele Video was not recognised, that same was the position in the cases oother purchasers, that there was merit in the AO's contention, that he had rightly not accepted the accounting results filed by the assesse, that in the case of some of the customers the amount was shown as receipts towards parking, that it was not clear whether it had been offered as income, that the assessee was delaying the recognition of revenue and was claiming losses, that the AO had estimated the profits. Finally, he upheld the additions made by the AO. 5. Before us, the AR argued that the method of accounting and recognition of revenue had been followed for all preceding and succeeding years consistently and regularly, that same method was accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e construction project having been sold out did not give rise to recognition of revenue unless the construction of the building as per approved plan was completed. He further argued that in the month of February jurisdiction of the AO was transferred, that the details could not be filed because of the change of AO. s., that the departmental authorities had not rejected the books of accounts, that the assessee had filed audited results, that they made additions on ad hoc basis, that there was no agreement to sell the remaining 3. 68% of the residential property in the year under consideration, that while passing the order u/s. 143(3)of the Act for the next AY., the AO added same amounts. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If the net advance was of Rs. 6. 70 crores then same was lower than the closing WIP of Rs. 7. 31 crores. The sole basis of making the addition was that advances were more than closing WIP. Considering these facts we are of the opinion that matter needs further verification and correct appreciation of facts. 6.1. We have also taken note of the fact that in the earlier years the AO had accepted the method of accounting followed by the assessee, while completing the assessment u/s. 143(3)of the Act. He has not given any reason as to why he was not satisfied with the method for the year under consideration. It is true that principles of res judicata do not apply to income tax proceedings, but principles of consistency apply. So, if an AO want ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying 5276 sq. ft with the difference in maximum sales price and the average sales price at Rs. 3, 018/-. 8. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that 11 agreements that were registered during the year under consideration and stated that the shops/offices were sold in the earlier years, that the agreements registered during the year were only 12. 22 % of total 90 units pertaining to the entire project, that the AO had considered the registration date and not booking date to conclude that the units were sold during the span of time, that the AO had considered 11 agreements registered during the year from the entire project and calculated average selling rate, that approach of the AO was incorrect. The FAA directed the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
