9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income from sale of development rights in respect of two Projects namely Poddar Project and Dheeraj Promoters respectively by holding that the said amounts are not chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration. 2. The assessee in the present case is a Development Authority constituted under section 11 of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979 to provide facilities for planned development of rural and urban area under Burdwan Municipality of West Bengal. As noticed by the Assessing Officer from the audited statements of accounts for the financial year 2005- 06 relevant to assessment year 2006- 07, the assessee had generated substantial amount of surplus. Since no return of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer that the assessee had received a total consideration/premium from the lessee partners aggregating to Rs. 9.07, 31,221/- in respect of Poddar Projects while the amount paid to Land Acquisition Collector of Burdwan in respect of the said project was only Rs. 4, 16,79,053/- retaining the balance amount of Rs. 4, 90,52,168/-. Similarly the assessee had received total consideration/premium of Rs. 52,63,350/- from Dheeraj Promoters, which was entirely retained by the assessee. Since the assessee could not offer any satisfactory explanation in respect of these surplus amounts retained by it amounting to Rs. 4,90, 52, 168/- and Rs. 52,63,350/-, the Assessing Officer treated the same as income of the assessee for the year under consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee of having not received the said amount during the year under consideration and keeping in view the same as well as the other comments made by the Assessing Officer in the remand report, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs. 4, 90,52, 168/- made by the Assessing Officer by holding that the same was not chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration. 5. As regards the addition of Rs. 52,63, 350/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of the amount received from M/s. Dheeraj Promoters, the ld. CIT(Appeals) found from the relevant Clauses of the Agreement entered into by the assessee with M/s. Dheeraj Promoters that the said amount to the extent of Rs. 50, 00, 000/- was received b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt basis is contradictory and not in conformity with Accounting Standards. 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As regards the common issue raised in Grounds No. 1, 2 & 3 relating to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appals) of the addition of Rs. 4, 90,52, 168/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of income of the assessee from Poddar Projects, it is observed that the said addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis that out of the total consideration of Rs. 9,07, 31, 221/- received by the assessee from the lessee partners, a sum of Rs. 4, 16, 79,053/- only was paid by the assessee to the Land Acquisition Collector of Burdwan and the balance amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of which the amount in question was added by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration, inasmuch as, there is no finding/observation recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order to show as to how the amount in question had accrued as an income to the assessee in the year under consideration and how it was chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee in the year under consideration by the mercantile system of accounting followed by the assessee. As a matter of fact, the said amount was assessed by the Assessing Officer in the year under consideration mainly on the basis that the same was actually received by the assessee during the year under consideration and the same represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjusted against the final amount on the execution of the project or the expiry of the period of 42 months, whichever is earlier. He accordingly held that the said amount of Rs. 50, 00, 000/- could be considered for assessment in A. Y. 2008- 09 and not in A.Y. 2006- 07, i.e. the year under consideration. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed on record a copy of the assessment order dated 20.12. 2016 passed by the Assessing officer under section 143(3)/ 147 of the Act for A.Y. 2009- 10 to show that the amount of Rs. 50,00, 000/- in question has already been taxed in the hands of the assessee for A.Y. 2009- 10 when the relevant project was completed and the amount in question actually accrued to the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
