9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the income for the year under consideration. The said basis, as already noted by us, however, turned out to be wrong. Moreover as explained by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, Project Completion Method was being followed by the assessee and the relevant project viz. Poddar Projects having been completed in the previous year relevant to assessment year 2009-10, the entire income from the said project was actually accrued to the assessee in A. Y. 2009-10 and the same was accordingly recognized and offered to tax in that year as is evident from the assessment order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 of the Act. We, therefore, find no merit in revenue appeal. Amount received from Dheeraj Promoters - 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 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 assessee as income on the basis of Project Completion Method followed by it. Keeping i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Project, Residential Township/ Complexes, Commercial Complexes etc. As further noted by the Assessing Officer, land for such projects was acquired and handed over to the assessee by the Land Acquisition Collector of Burdwan and the same in turn was transferred by the assessee to the Private Partners for execution of various projects. The compensation payable to land owners was paid by the assessee through Land Acquisition Collector, Burdwan out of the premium received from the lessee partners and the surplus was retained by the assessee as reflected in its balance- sheet. From the details of such amounts reflected in the balance-sheet of the assessee, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had received a total consideration/premium from the lessee partners aggregating to ₹ 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 ₹ 4, 16,79,053/- retaining the balance amount of ₹ 4, 90,52,168/-. Similarly the assessee had received total consideration/premium of ₹ 52,63,350/- from Dheeraj Promoters, which was entirely retained by the assessee. Sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Clauses of the Agreement entered into by the assessee with M/s. Dheeraj Promoters that the said amount to the extent of ₹ 50, 00, 000/- was received by the assessee on account of security deposit, which was liable to be adjusted against the final payment on execution of the project or the expiry of the period of 42 months, whichever is earlier. The ld. CIT(Appeals) accordingly held that the said amount of ₹ 50,00, 000/- was liable to be considered for assessment in A. Y. 2008- 09 and not in the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2006-07. He accordingly deleted the addition of ₹ 50, 00, 000/- out of the total addition of ₹ 52, 63,350/- made by the Assessing Officer on this issue. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds:- (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting income of the assessee from sale of development rights to the tune of ₹ 4 ,90,52,168/- being not actually received in the relevant previous year. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt in question, even though was not received by the assessee in the year under consideration, had become due and accrued to the assessee in the year under consideration and the same, therefore, was rightly assessed by the Assessing Officer in the hands of the assessee following the mercantile system of accounting. In this regard, it is noted that this was not the basis 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 representing surplus over the amount paid to the Land Acquisition Officer of Burdwan b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
