9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment for A.Y.2014-15 were subsequently subjected to any reopening u/s 147 of the Act or revision proceedings u/s.263 of the Act. Hence, it could be safely concluded that the ld. AO while framing the assessment for the A.Y.2015-16 had merely adopted the same valuation method accepted by his predecessor for A.Y.2014-15 in assessee s own case. Hence, there cannot be any error on the part of the ld. AO in framing a possible view thereon. In any case, we would like to hold that the assessee had furnished the actual cost incurred in respect of this project which had been subsequently completed, before the ld. CIT during the revision proceedings wherein, the assessee was able to prove that the estimate made as on 31/03/2015 matched closer to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee is an individual and he is a builder and developer. The return of income for the A.Y.2015-16 was electronically filed by the assessee on 01/10/2015 declaring total income of ₹ 1,54,96,400/-. The assessment was completed by the ld. AO u/s.143(3) of the Act on 30/06/2017 determining the total income of the assessment at ₹ 1,59,20,900/-. Later this assessment was sought to be revised by the ld. Pr. CIT u/s.263 of the Act on the ground that the learned Assessing Officer failed to conduct appropriate enquiries and had not examined the valuation of closing stock ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Road usage charges 10650000 Total stock value as on 31/03/2015 35000000 3.1. The assessee submitted before the ld. Pr. CIT that the valuation of closing stock as on 31/03/2015 as tabulated supra has been the subject matter of verification by the ld. AO and hence, it cannot be said that there was a failure on the part of the ld. AO to make enquiry regarding the same. 3.2. The assessee also brought to the notice of the ld. Pr. CIT that in respect of projects in Vrindavan Residency and Vrindavan Valley, the value reflected above were the same values as were c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the assessee pleaded that there cannot be any prejudice that could be caused to the interests of the revenue in the estimated valuation of closing stock by the assessee as on 31.3.2015 in respect of Kalyan Project. 4. The ld. Pr.CIT did not adhere to the aforesaid contentions of the assessee and observed as under:- a. The claim of the assessee that project is 50% completed in respect of Vrindavan Palms at Kalyan is only self-serving and not supported by any Architect s Certificate either during the course of assessment proceedings or during the course of revision proceedings u/s.263 of the Act. The assessee has not maintained separate books of accounts for each project. b. The assessee has considered only the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 23 of the Act. 6.1. We find that in respect of Vrindavan Palms Project, which is only project which is operational as on 31/03/2015, the cost requires to be allocated. The assessee has valued this project at an estimated cost of construction at ₹ 1500/- per sq. ft. This according to the assessee covers all the costs involved / incurred for this particular project as on 31.3.2015. Hence, there is no question of allocation of further costs be it direct or indirect or general / administrative expenses to the said project, while valuing the closing stock thereon. We also find from the scrutiny assessment order framed in assessee s own case for the A.Y.2014-15 u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 30/11/2016, similar valuation method a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is project deserves to be quashed. 6.2. In respect of projects at Vrindavan Residency and Vrindavan Valley, the values reflected as on 31/03/2015 were carried over from the earlier years as they were completed projects and the values reflected thereon represent unsold stocks in the subject mentioned project. There need not be any further attribution of costs in respect of such project. Hence, no error could be attributed on the part of the ld. AO accepting to the said valuation made by the assessee. Hence, 263 proceedings initiated for disturbing the said valuation deserves to be quashed. 6.3. In respect of Vrindavan Shrishti Project, it is undisputed that as on 31/03/2015, the assessee had only spent on road usage charges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
