Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH
आदेश /O R D E R
Per Bench: These appeals are filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam vide ITA No. 1247/2013-14/ITO,W-1(2), VSP/2017-18 dated 08.12.2017, 1177/2014-15/ITO,W-1(2), VSP/2017-18 dated 18.12.2017 and cross objections filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 and 2012-13. Since the issues involved in these appeals are identical, the appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed of in a common order for the sake of convenience as under.
I.T.A. 31/Viz/2018, A.Y.2011-12
Ground No.1 and 10 are general in nature which does not require specific adjudication.
Ground No.2 and 3 are related to the addition of Rs.92,65,180/- on account of unaccounted sales. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the real estate business, filed its return of income on
3 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
30.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.5,93,770/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short) and subsequently a survey u/s 133A was conducted on 18.10.2011 in the business premises of the assessee firm. During the course of survey, the assessee has the admitted additional income of Rs.2,07,00,000/- representing outstanding liabilities in the balance sheet. Subsequent to survey, the assessee firm filed revised return of income on 28.10.2011 declaring total income of Rs.2,12,93,770/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on total income of Rs.4,89,81,620/- and various other additions were also made by the Assessing Officer (AO).
3.1. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noticed from the list of the parties to whom the firm had sold the plots during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2011-12 from the impounded material marked as Annexure SPRE/Annexure 01/11-12, pages from 11 to 18 that the firm has recorded the full details of sales such as actual amount collected from the parties and the rate at which the plot was agreed to be sold. The rates were ranging from Rs.2300 to Rs.3500 per sq.yard. The AO found that the assessee has admitted only the part amount in the return of
4 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
income. Therefore, the AO had issued the show cause notice vide letter dated 14.02.2014 specifying the details of the amounts recorded in the impounded material relating to the A.Y.2011-12 for 23 plots out of total 36 plots sold, which worked out to Rs.2,17,73,080/- against which the assessee had offered income of Rs.1,25,07,900/-. Therefore asked for explanation as to why the difference amount of Rs.96,25,180/- (21773080- 12507900) should not be added as undisclosed sales. The AO also enclosed the list of sales as per the incriminating material found during the course of survey in Annexure-A containing the details. In response to the show cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee firm stated that the negotiations for sale of plots took place way back in 2005-06 and accordingly the rates were mentioned in the loose sheet and the data was compiled but the amounts from the parties were collected as per the sale deeds, but not as per the loose sheets found during the course of survey. The AO did not accept the argument of the assessee and observed that since, the impounded material contained the details of final rate, total amount, advance amount and the balance amount, the AO held that the assessee had collected the entire amount of Rs.2,17,73,080/- in respect of 23 plots out of 36 plots sold by it during the previous year relevant to the
5 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
A.Y. 2011-12 and accordingly considered it as unaccounted sales and brought to tax. This issue is involved for the A.Y. 2012-13 also.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and argued that there is no evidence in the impounded material to show that the assessee had received the additional consideration. It was also contended before the Ld.CIT(A) that the entries in the impounded material does not refer the actual consideration received and it was only an estimation and the stamp duty valuation at that time and hence, the addition is not justified. The Ld.CIT(A) communicated the submissions of the assessee to the AO and requested to offer his comments. Report received from the AO as well as objections filed by the assessee was considered by the Ld.CIT(A) and observed that the AO was of the view that the assessee received additional sale consideration on sale of plots as per the Excel sheet (loose sheet) found during the course of survey u/s 133A. The contention of the assessee was that there is no variation between the sale proceedings recorded in the books of accounts and the actual amount received by the assessee and the amount mentioned in the Excel sheets. The assessee also further submitted that there is other material available
6 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
with the AO relating to correspondence regarding sale of plots and other loose sheets (Excell sheet) supporting the argument of the assessee. Before the CIT(A), the assessee has demonstrated that there was another Excel sheet which was found during the course of survey and in possession of the AO supporting the contention of the assessee and the AO did not consider the same while arriving the unaccounted sales. The CIT(A) verified couple of transactions from the loose sheets relied upon by the assessee which shows that the lesser amount was recorded in the original Excel sheet and higher amount in the subsequent Excel sheet. Apart from the two different excel sheets discussed above, the assessee also filed confirmation letters from the customers, wherein they have stated that they have paid actual consideration as recorded in the registered sale deed and no excess consideration was paid. The AO did not accept the confirmation letters. The Ld.CIT(A) viewed that there is no reason to suspect the confirmation letters received from the buyers of the plots in the absence of any evidence to support the excess consideration received by the assessee. Placing reliance on the second Excel sheet and the confirmation letters furnished by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) held that there is no variation in the amount mentioned in the Excel sheet and the
7 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
amount recorded in the books of accounts. The Ld.CIT(A) also relied on the decision of Nagarjuna Construction Co. Limited Vs. DCIT (2012) 52 sot 178 (Hyderabad) and CIT Vs. Gian Gupta (2014) 89 CCH 48 (Del). The Ld.CIT(A) held that there is no justification for making the addition and accordingly deleted the addition made by the AO. This issue is involved for the A.Y. 2012-13 also and agitated by the AO in Ground No.4 and 5 of the appeal and the addition made for the A.Y. 2012-13 was Rs.17,53,040/-.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) the revenue filed appeal before this Tribunal. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR argued that a survey u/s 133A was conducted in the business premises of the assessee and there was material found and impounded showing the details of the actual size of plots sold, agreed sale price and the actual sale consideration admitted in the books of accounts or recorded in the registered sale deed. There was a difference in the agreed sale price and the amounts admitted in the books of accounts and the registered sale deeds. As per the provisions of the Act, section 292C the presumption is available to the AO to hold that the material available during the course of survey is true and correct and belonged to the assessee. The assessee did not effectively discharge its onus with regard to non-receipt of excess consideration.
8 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
Since the material available in the course of survey is complete, confirmation letters and the other excel sheets are only self-serving documents to support the contention of the assessee which should not be taken cognizance of. The Ld.DR further stated that it is a common practice in the real estate business to accept on money. Since the receipt of on money is supported by the entries made in the excel sheets, the Ld. DR strongly supported the order of the AO and requested to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the order of the AO.
On the other hand, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee started venture way back in 2004/2005 and there was substantial delay in executing the project. The assessee has social responsibility and there was pressing demand from the plot buyers to complete the project. Though the buyers have initially accepted for certain higher amounts, subsequently, the assessee had to accept the amounts paid by the plot buyers and register the plots to the buyers to avoid further delay and the litigation. The assessee had no sales due to prolonged delay in the execution of the projects, due to which the assessee accepted the lesser amounts which were recorded in the second excel sheet found during the course of survey and there is no variation between the amount mentioned in the excel sheet
9 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
and the amount recorded in the books of accounts. Except the first excel sheet, there was no evidence available in the survey material to show that the assessee had received the excess amount than what was recorded in the registered sale deeds. The Ld.A.R .argued that there is no receipt of on money and there was no evidence available with the AO to support the receipt of on money, hence requested to uphold the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In this case, the AO made the addition of Rs.92,65,180/- on account of unaccounted sales. For making the addition, the AO mainly taken support from the excel sheets found during the course of survey. No other evidence was found to support that the assessee had received the on money over and above the amount recorded in the registered sale deed. There was another excel sheet which was found during the course of survey and the same was also impounded. As per the second excel sheet, there was no variation in the amounts recorded in the second excel sheet as well as the amounts accounted in the books of accounts. The AO considered the excel sheet which is more beneficial to the revenue and ignored the information available with the AO which was not beneficial to the revenue, which is incorrect approach. The assessee also filed
10 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
confirmation letters from the buyers confirming the payment and confirmed that no excess amount was paid over and above the amounts recorded in the registered sale deeds. The AO did not make enquiry with the customers to elicit the fact. In the instant case, the assessee’s contention is supported by the impounded material in the form of excel sheet, confirmation letters filed by the customers and the registered sale deeds substantiating that there was no excess amount received by the assessee. As explained by the Ld.AR there was inordinate delay in the execution of the project and actual sale of plots took place in 2010-11 to the customers who have booked the in 2005. No other material is placed before us to support the Revenue’s contention of receiving the consideration over and above the registered sale deed. Therefore, we hold that the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld.
Ground No.4 and 5 are related to the addition of Rs.41,40,640/- the difference between the sale consideration as per the sale deeds and the market value as per sub registrar office (SRO). This issue is involved for the A.Y. 2012-13 also and the department has raised this issue in Ground No.5, 6 and 7. During the survey proceedings, the AO found that there was
11 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
difference between the SRO value and the total sale consideration as per the registered document. The AO issued show cause notice asking the assessee as to why the sale consideration should not be adopted as per the market value / SRO value. A list containing the details of plots sold with market value and the SRO value was also furnished by the AO in the assessment order as Annexure ‘B’. Such difference was worked out to Rs.41,40,640/-. Since the assessee could not offer satisfactory explanation, the AO made the addition representing the difference between the SRO value and the sale consideration as unaccounted sales.
8.1. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the plots which were sold by the assessee was not capital asset, but stock-in-trade. The assessee had recorded the actual amounts in the sale deed and accounted in the books of accounts. Since, the plots sold were stock in trade, provisions of section 50C are not applicable. Since, 50C has no application, the Ld.CIT(A) viewed that the AO should not have made the addition representing the difference of value between the SRO and the sale consideration as per sale deeds. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A).
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue has filed appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.DR strongly supported the order of the AO,
12 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
whereas, the Ld.AR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case, the excel sheet was found indicating the different values in respect of sale consideration received by the assessee and recorded in the sale deed and the market value in excel sheet. The AO was of the view that such difference required to be brought to tax as undisclosed sales. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee has accounted the actual consideration and the same was recorded in the sale deeds and there was no difference. The plots sold were stock in trade, but not the capital asset. The difference in SRO value and the sale consideration required to be taxed as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act in respect of capital asset, but not in respect of stock in trade. Since the asset in question is stock in trade, there is no case for application of section 50C of the Act. No other evidence was found by the AO to establish that the assessee had received the sale consideration over and above the amount recorded in the sale deeds. As contended by the Ld.AR the provisions of section 50C are not applicable in the case of stock in trade. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Appeal of the revenue on this ground is
13 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
dismissed.
Ground No.6 and 7 are related to the addition of Rs.72,14,820/- in respect of unexplained advances received from the customers. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found as per the impounded material marked as SPRE/Annexure 01/11-12 it was noticed that that an amount of Rs.3,68,23,700/- was collected and out of the said amount, some plots (8 in number) were remained unregistered during the year. In the aforesaid 8 plots, the assessee had collected the sum of Rs.72,14,820/-, but not admitted the same as income in the year under consideration. The assessee explained that it is following the method of admitting the income in the year in which the plots were registered. The said method is followed regularly, hence, submitted that the said amount was offered to income in the earlier year or in the subsequent years as per the registration and there is no case for making any addition on account of the advances received. Not being convinced with the explanation of the assessee, the AO made the addition of Rs.72,14,820/- as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before
14 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
the CIT(A) and submitted that the sales referred in the list were partly the repetitions and some of them were related to the next year. The Ld.CIT(A) forwarded the submissions to the AO and the AO has accepted that plot No.18,77 and 55 were related to the earlier years. Plot No.11, 26, 45, 53 were registered in the next financial year i.e. 2011-12 relevant to the A.Y. 2012-13. The AO supported the addition since, the assessee did not furnish the satisfactory explanation at the time of assessment. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition observing that the AO had agreed that three plots were duplicating errors of Annexure A and B which was added as unaccounted sales and the remaining 4 plots were registered in the subsequent assessment year, hence, held that the addition cannot be made in the year under consideration. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed that the assessee firm had admitted a sum of Rs.2,07,00,000/- towards unexplained advances from the customers, therefore, there is no case for making addition separately on this issue. Accordingly, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO and the department has filed appeal before us.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The revenue’s case is that the assessee has collected the advance but not admitted the same as income. The assessee’s case is that out of the
15 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
total amount of Rs.72,14,820/- consisting of 8 plots, three plots bearing No.17, 18 and 55 were duplicating entries which was already considered in annexure ‘A’ under the head unaccounted sales and the four plots were registered in the subsequent assessment year and offered to income, thus, there is no case for making addition in respect of 7 plots. The assessee further contended that the said amount was outstanding in advances received and the assessee had already admitted the sum of Rs.2,07,00,000/- representing the advances as additional income and there is no case for making further addition relating to the same advances. In the instant case, in respect of three plots, it was already discussed in the earlier paragraphs that the AO has made the addition as sales as per Annexure’A’ under the head unaccounted sales and represent duplicating error. In respect of 4 plots, the assessee submitted that said 4 plots were registered in the subsequent assessment year and offered to income. This fact was not disputed by the AO in the remand report. Since three plots were repetitive entries and the four plots were registered in the subsequent assessment year, there is no case for making addition in respect of the aforesaid seven plots. Even otherwise, the AO made the addition in respect of the advances received and the entire advances
16 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
outstanding in the balance sheet of Rs.2,07,00,000/- as at the end of the year was admitted as income, hence, there is no case for making separate addition for unexplained advances. Accordingly, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue on this ground is dismissed.
Ground No.8 is related to the collection of development charges to the tune of Rs.48,45,210/-. During the course of survey, the AO observed that the assessee firm had issued letters to the parties requesting them to make the payment of Rs.1,000/- per sq.yard, towards development charges and material was found and impounded as annexure SPRE/ 01/11-12 pages 23 to 31. The AO found that the assessee firm has sold 36 plots consisting of 9859.4 sq.yards during the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2011-12 and offered only a sum of Rs.50,14,190/- towards development charges. The AO asked the assessee as to why the balance amount of Rs.48,45,210/- should not be treated as income. The assessee in response to the notice submitted that it had admitted the receipts from the parties on actual payment basis and the remaining parties did not make the payment of development charges, hence there is no case for making the addition.Not being convinced with the explanation of the assessee, the AO made the
17 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
addition of Rs.48,45,210/- which was due from the plot buyers.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition finding that wherever the customers have paid the development charges, the same was included in the registered sale deed evidencing the sale of plot. No information was found during the course of survey u/s 133A to the effect that the assessee had received the development charges other than that was already recorded in the books of accounts. Since there was no evidence to hold that the assessee has received the remaining development charges, there is no case for making the addition. Accordingly the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue filed appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In this case, the assessee sought to collect the development charges from the buyers of the plots. However, as discussed earlier, the project started way back in 2005, got delayed and the plots were registered in 2011-12. Due to inordinate delay, the assessee could not collect the
18 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
development charges as agreed by the parties. Therefore, the assessee has admitted the development charges to the extent of receipt and did not admit the balance amount. There was no evidence to show that the assessee had received the development charges, but not admitted the income. Since the assessee is bound by its commitment to register plots at the rate agreed initially at the time of booking the plot, the assessee has to register the plots without pressing for the development charges. There was no material available to show that the development charges have accrued to the assessee. Since the plots were registered and the assessee could not collect the development charges, we do not have any reason to sustain the addition made by the AO. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.
Ground No.9 is related to the telescoping of additional income of Rs.2.07 crores offered during the course of survey against various additions made in the assessment order. The ground raised by the revenue is very vague and no details of telescopic benefit was furnished in the ground. However, as per the CIT(A) order and the submissions made by the Ld.DR during the appeal hearing, we find that the Ld.CIT(A) allowed telescopic benefit of Rs.12,22,000/- out of the additional income. The
19 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
Ld.CIT(A) observed that the AO made the addition towards additional sale consideration, development charges and various discrepancies such as unexplained investment in purchase of land etc. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the independent additions on the merits and also allowed telescopic benefit in respect of the expenses holding that the AO cannot make the addition representing the same issue of expenses as well as the sources. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we extract relevant part of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) which reads as under :
“11.5. I have carefully considered the above submissions. I have also perused the assessment order, statement of facts, remand report of the AO and counter submissions of the AR. The assessee firm admitted additional income of Rs.2,07,00,000 and the same was included in the return of income filed. The admission was given towards discrepancies noticed at the time of survey and the additions made by the assessing officer under various heads were also based on the very same discrepancies. The assessing officer made additions towards additional sale consideration/development charges considered to have been realized from the customers on sale of plots. The assessee admitted a round sum of Rs.2,07,00,000 by treating the advance from customers as income. Thus, the essential characteristic of the income is the same. Hence, the request of the assessee for telescoping is justified. However, while deciding the earlier grounds of appeal I have directed the assessing officer to delete various additions made by him towards additional sale consideration/development charges. Though I have sustained addition of Rs.5,00,000 towards ad-hoc disallowance of expenses, the additional income offered towards advance from customers cannot be considered for set off against the said expenditure. Hence, the question of telescoping does not arise. This ground of appeal is decided accordingly.”
We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is undisputed fact that the assessee had admitted a sum of
20 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
Rs.2,07,00,000/- outstanding in the balance sheet as outstanding liability which represent the advances. The AO made the addition relating to the advance received from the parties, unexplained expenditure and addition on account of disallowance of addition made etc. Since the advances are already covered under the outstanding liabilities, the same cannot be made addition which amounts to double addition of the outstanding advances. Similarly, in respect of the unexplained expenditure also since the source is available in the form of additional income representing the advances, the source is treated as explained and no further addition required to be made. Apart from the above, if the advances are removed from the balance sheet, the capital balance would increase or the source relating to the unexplained investments/expenditure/cash credits stands explained to that extent. During the appeal hearing, the revenue did not make out a case that the expenditure or the addition which was allowed for telescopic benefit is over and above the additional income admitted by the assessee or it represents separate issue beyond the scope of sources. Therefore, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. I.T.A.No.32/Viz/2018, A.Y.2012-13
Ground No.1 to 3 for the A.Y. 2012-13 in I.T.A.No.32/Viz/2018 are
21 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
related to the addition of Rs.2,07,00,000/- made by the AO towards inflation in opening work in progress. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that as at the end of 2010-11 the closing stock was Rs.1,95,57,064/- against which the assessee declared opening stock as on 01.04.2011 at Rs.4,02,57,064/- relevant to the A.Y.2012-13. Similarly, the assessee also increased the closing work in progress to the extent of Rs.2,07,00,000/-. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention here that the assessee has admitted the additional income of Rs.2,07,00,000/- in the earlier A.Y.2011-12 which it has taken the benefit in the subsequent assessment year by increasing the opening stock as well as the closing stock in the year under consideration. The AO asked the assessee to explain as to why the same should not be added back to the income. The assessee filed explanation stating that the said sum of Rs.2,07,00,000/- represents the expenditure incurred for site advances, hence, the assessee has passed necessary journal entries correcting the work-in-progress and stated that there is no case for making the addition. However, the assessee could not furnish the breakup of the details of advances made hence, the AO made the addition.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before
22 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition observing that the assessee increased the opening stock as well was the closing stock and even after reducing the amount increased by the assessee from the stocks trading account resulted into loss of Rs.1,33,000/- and there was no difference. Thus, the assessee did not get any benefit out of the increase in opening stock and closing stock and there is no effect in the income. Hence, no addition is called for. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we extract relevant part of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) which reads as under :
“5.3. I have considered the submissions made. I have gone through the profit and loss account of the appellant firm for the financial year 2011-12. The total turnover of the appellant for this year was found to be Rs.1,26,12,060/- and the expenditure claimed was Rs.1,27,45,060/- resulting in net loss of Rs.1,33,000/. The opening work in progress was Rs.4,02,57,064/- and the closing work in progress was Rs.2,88,25,035/-. If this profit and loss account is redrawn after eliminating the excess work in progress of Rs.2,07,00,000/- from both the opening work in progress and closing work in progress, there is no change in the net result. As rightly contended by the appellant, the excess amount has to be removed both from opening work in progress and closing work in progress. This issue can be examined from another angle as well. If the contention of the assessing officer that the opening work in progress has to be reduced by Rs.2,07,00,000/- then the amount of opening work in progress would be Rs.1,95,57,064/-. As against this, the expenditure incurred during the year is only Rs.13,13,030/-. Such being the case, the closing WIP could not have been Rs2,88,25,035/-. Further, if the disallowance of Rs.2,07,00,000/- is considered, the profit would be Rs.2,05,67,000/- as against toss of Rs1,33,000f claimed by the appellant. When the turnover itself is Rs.1.26 crores how can there be a profit of Rs.205 crores? Thus, in my considered view the Assessing officer is not correct in excluding the amount of Rs.2,07,00,000/- only from the opening WIP. Viewed from any angle, the addition made by the assessing officer is not correct. The AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs.2,07,00,000/-. This ground of appeal is allowed.”
23 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In this case, the assessee has admitted the additional income of Rs.2,07,00,000/- by surrendering the outstanding liabilities in the A.Y. 2011-12 which was taken as a benefit for increasing the opening work in progress and also increase in closing working in progress. The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee and made the addition. The assessee in her letter dated 11.03.2015 accepted that increase in opening work in progress or closing work in progress is erroneous. Having accepted that the increase in work in progress to the extent of Rs.2.07 crores is erroneous, the sum of Rs.2.07 crores required to be reduced from both the opening work in progress as well as closing work in progress and there is no effect on the trading account and loss remained the same amount of Rs.1,33,000/-. Therefore, there is no benefit derived by the assessee by increasing the opening work in progress and closing work in progress by sum of Rs.2.07 crores. Since the assessee has accepted the mistake and furnished the letter dated 11.03.2015 and there is no impact on the trading account and the income of the assessee for the year under consideration, we are of the view that there is no requirement to make addition of Rs.2,07,00,000/- separately. However, the AO required to take necessary
24 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
precaution to allow the closing work in progress correctly after reducing the sum of Rs.2.07 crores in the subsequent year. Accordingly, there is no case for making the addition and we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. The appeal of the revenue on this ground is dismissed.
The cross objection are supportive to the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Since the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, cross objections becomes infructuous for the A.Y.2012-13 and the same is dismissed. In respect of the cross objections for the A.Y. 2011-12, ground No.5 is related to the sustaining of addition of Rs.5 lakhs out of the total addition of Rs.10 lakhs towards adhoc disallowance of expenses. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR did not make any argument on this ground, hence, this ground is dismissed as not pressed.
Remaining grounds raised in the cross objections are in support of the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Since the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is upheld, the cross objection of the assessee becomes infructuous and hence, dismissed.
In the result, appeals of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed.
25 I.T.A. No.31& 32/Viz/2018 and CO No.16 & 17/Viz/2018 M/s Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, Visakhapatnam
Order pronounced in the open court on 13th February, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह) (िी.दुगाा राि) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (V. DURGA RAO) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER नवशधखधपटणम /Visakhapatnam नििधंक /Dated : 13.02.2019 L.Rama, SPS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाऩरती/ The Assessee- Sri Padmavathi Real Estate Consultancies, D.No.10-27-14/A, Kailasmetta, Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam 3. The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Visakhapatnam 4. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Visakhapatnam 5. तिभागीय प्रतितिति, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, तिशाखािटणम /DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6.गार्डफ़ाईि / Guard file आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER // True Copy //
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam