ACIT, JAIPUR vs. MAYURA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, KISHANGARH

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM

vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 873 & 874/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2013-14 cuke Assistant Commissioner M/s Mayura Infrastructure Vs. of Income Tax, Development Company, Central circle-1, Jaipur. House No. H-28, Khoda Ganesh Ji Colony, Khoda Ganesh Ji Road, Madanganj, Kishangarh, Ajmer-305801. PAN No.: AAOFM 2867 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Mukesh Verma (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Nikhlesh Kataria (CA) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 17/04/2017 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 25/04/2017 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M.

ITA 873/JP/2016 filed by the revenue emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur dated 18/07/2016 for the A.Y. 2011-12 and ITA

No. 874/JP/2016 also filed by the revenue emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur dated 26/07/2016 for the A.Y. 2013-14. In both

these appeals, the grounds of appeal is common except the difference in

ITA 873 & 874/JP/2016 2 ACIT Vs. Mayura Infrastructure Devlp. Co.

figure of the amount. The grounds taken by the revenue in ITA No. 873&

874/JP/2016 is reproduced hereunder:-

Grounds of ITA No. 873/JP/2016

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,61,02,357/- made by A.O. on account of disallowance of ‘provision for development for development expenses’ claimed by the assessee firm.” Grounds of ITA No. 874/JP/2016

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,07,83,044/- made by A.O. on account of disallowance of ‘provision for development for development expenses’ claimed by the assessee firm.”

U/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) was carried on

29/03/2010 at the various premises of Mayura Group. Mayura

Infrastructure Development Company (MIDC) is a partnership firm which

is developing a integrated township named as “Mayura City” at

Madanganj, Kishangarh. The Assessing Officer made addition for not

allowing the provision for development expenses of Rs. 13,61,02,357/- in

the assessment year 2011-12 and Rs. 11,07,83,044/- in the assessment

year 2013-14.

ITA 873 & 874/JP/2016 3 ACIT Vs. Mayura Infrastructure Devlp. Co.

The relevant para of the ld. CIT(A)’s order for A.Y. 2011-12 is reproduced

hereunder:-

“3.1.2 I have duly considered assessee's submission and carefully gone through assessment order passed by the AO. I have also taken a note of factual matrix of the case as well as applicable case laws relied upon.

It is a fact that AO has not pointed out any mistake in detailed working nor done any physical verification of the site whether any such activity has taken by the assessee at the project site or not?. Apart from this, it is also pertinent to mention here that assessee has offered the same returned income in compliance of notice u/s 153A of the Act as it had furnished in original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act on 31/10/2011. On careful perusal of assessment order, it is also seen that AO has not referred any incriminating documents seized during the year in support of his contention. Therefore, AO’s action is simply based on the fact that assessee has created a provision for future expenses and he was required to examine whether it is a contingent liability or accrued liability to be incurred on a future date.

During the year in appeal, assessee is engaged is developing an integrated township named as "Mayura City" at Madanganj Kishangrah. The Map of the township was approved on 26.03.2010 and it started sale the land from 21.07.2010. However, if is submitted that assessee could not complete and develop its township project within the stipulated deadline which was committed to its customers, and for fulfillment of this commitment, assessee made a provision

ITA 873 & 874/JP/2016 4 ACIT Vs. Mayura Infrastructure Devlp. Co.

against the sale in FY 2010-11 on the basis of prevailing accounting principles. MIDC is not having its own land except the land contributed by its partners, accordingly, it entered into the Development Agreements with the various Land Owners as Developer. Provision for land development expenses of Rs 13,61,02,357/- had been made in A.Y 2011-12. The provision were made for the project related expenses that had not been incurred against sales of land which had been made till the date of making the provision. The firm sold the land in F.Y. 2011-12 Area 1,64,456/- Sq. Yds. The whole sale deeds were made with the commitment to the buyers for the internal development of the township. Assessee has also provided a detailed working of the provision made for the AY 2011-12 in a Tabular Form, with detailed explanation to the each working.

As per the details given in above table, the total project cost as per the estimate made by the registered valuer was arrived at Rs 43,35,00,000/, therefore, the cost of development per squares yard comes to Rs 956/-.The development expenses up to 31.03.2011 were made up of Rs 5,81,63,781/- which works out at cost of development expenditure already incurred at Rs 128/- per sq yards on sale made. Therefore, provision of remaining development expenses to be incurred of Rs 828/= per sq yards (956-128=828} amounting to Rs 13,61,02,357/- was made on the area sold above. In support of its claim, assessee has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Bharat Earth Movers &. Calcutta Co Ltd (supra) and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Courts in case of Om Metals and Minerals P Ltd (supra).

It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Om Metal and Mineral Pvt. Ltd (Supra) after considering the judgment

ITA 873 & 874/JP/2016 5 ACIT Vs. Mayura Infrastructure Devlp. Co.

rendered in the case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 (SC) culled out following principles for a claim like this (430 245 ITR):

For an assessee maintaining his accounts on mercantile system, a liability already accrued, though to be discharged at a future date, would be a proper deduction while working out the profits and gains of his business, regard being had to the accepted Principles of Commercial practice and Accountancy, it is not as if such deduction is permissible only in case of amounts actually expended or paid.

Therefore, in view of facts and circumstances of the case and most respectfully following aforementioned case laws, addition made of Rs. 13,61,02,357/= being the provision is hereby deleted.

Identical finding has also been given by the ld. CIT(A) in the case for

A.Y. 2013-14 and deleted the addition.

on the order of the Assessing Officer and pleaded that the estimate of

the provision was not based on any scientific method. He also pleaded

the liability was contingent and it was not accrued liability hence

provision is not allowable. On the contrary, the ld AR has relied on the

order of the ld. CIT(A).

perused the material available on the record. The assessee is a

partnership firm which has developed a integrated township named as

ITA 873 & 874/JP/2016 6 ACIT Vs. Mayura Infrastructure Devlp. Co.

“Mayura City” at Madanganj, Kishangarh. The map of the township was

approved on 26/03/2010. The assessee company could not develop fully

all basic infrastructure in a short span of period, however, they have

agreed in the terms and conditions for sales of plots to develop the

township fully in the subsequent years. The total area of township was

4,53,530.92 Sq. Yards. The assessee had sold area 1,64,546 Sq yards in

the F.Y. relevant to A.Y. 2011-12. The sale deeds were made with the

commitment to the respective buyers for internal development of the

township. Assessee had made provision by taking project cost estimate

at Rs. 43,35,00,000/-, cost of development per Sq. yards has been

worked at Rs. 956/-. The actual expenditure during the year incurred

was only of Rs. 128/- per sq.yard and provision was made for balance

amount. The assessee estimated the expenditure which was required to

be incurred for the development. The facts of the case suggest that the

payment realized on the sale of plots were for the developed township.

The assessee came under obligation to develop land which has been sold

out on the realization of sale proceeds. Assessee is following mercantile

method of accounting. In this view of the matter, the assessee’s liability

has accrued but the same is to be discharged at later date. The working

of the provision for accrued liability has been made as under:-

ITA 873 & 874/JP/2016 7 ACIT Vs. Mayura Infrastructure Devlp. Co.

Total Project Cost taken on the basis of estimate of A 43,35,00,000 consulting engineer/approved valuer (in Rs.) Total Land Area available with MIDC(in Sq Yards) B 4,53,530.92 Cost of development expenses(A/B)(per Sq Yards) C 956 Actual development expenses upto 31.03.2011 (in D 5,81,63,781 Rs.) Cost of development exp. per sq yards of actual E 128 expenses(D/B) Provision to be made for more expenses(In Rs)(C-E) F 828 Sales made during F.Y 2010-ll(sq yards) G 1,64,456.89 Amount of provision on sold area(In Rs)(F*G) 13,61,02,357

The claim of the expenditure for which the provision has been made was

having direct nexus with the income as declared by the assessee,

therefore, such provision made by the assessee was allowable during the

year under consideration. In view of these facts and circumstances, we

are in agreement with the order of the ld. CIT(A). For holding so, we also

get support from the following case laws:-

ITA 873 & 874/JP/2016 8 ACIT Vs. Mayura Infrastructure Devlp. Co.

In the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs CIT (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held as under:-

If a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should also be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible. If these requirements are satisfied the liability is not a contingent one. The liability is in praesenti though it will be discharged at a future date. It does not make any difference if the future date on which the liability shall have to be discharged is not certain.

The assessee-company had two sets of employees. One set of employees was covered by the Employees State Insurance Scheme and was generally known as "staff". The other set of employees not so covered was known generally as "officers". The company had floated beneficial schemes for its employees for encashment of leave. The officers were entitled to earned leave calculated at the rate of 2.5 days per month, i.e., 30 days per year. The staff (other than officers) were entitled to vacation leave calculated at the rate of 1.5 days per month, i.e., 18 days in a year. The earned leave could be accumulated up to a maximum of 240 days while the vacation leave could be accumulated up to a maximum of 126 days. The earned leave/vacation leave could be encashed subject to the ceiling on accumulation. The officers could at their option avail of the accumulated leave or in lieu of availing of the leave apply for encashment whereupon they would be paid salary for the period of leave earned but not availed of. So did the scheme extend the facility of encashment to the staff in respect of vacation leave. The assessee-company had created a fund by making a provision for meeting its liability arising on account of the accumulated earned/vacation leave. In the assessment year 1978-79 , an amount of Rs. 62,25,483 was set apart in a separate account as provision for encashment of accrued leave. It was claimed as a deduction. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the assessee was entitled to such deduction. The High Court had formed a different opinion and held that the provision for accrued leave salary was a contingent liability and

ITA 873 & 874/JP/2016 9 ACIT Vs. Mayura Infrastructure Devlp. Co.

therefore was not a permissible deduction. On appeal to the Supreme Court :

Held, reversing the decision of the High Court, that the provision made by the assessee-company for meeting the liability incurred by it under the leave encashment scheme proportionate with the entitlement earned by the employees of the company, inclusive of the officers and the staff, subject to the ceiling on accumulation as applicable on the relevant date, was entitled to deduction out of the gross receipts of the accounting year during which the provision is made for the liability. The liability was not a contingent liability.”

Similarly in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, West Bengal, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

In the relevant accounting year the appellant actually received in cash only a sum of Rs. 29,392 towards sale price of lands, but in accordance with the mercantile system of accounts adopted by it, it credited in its accounts the sum of Rs. 43,692 representing the full sale price of lands. At the same time it also debited an estimated sum of Rs. 24,809 as expenditure for the developments it had undertaken to carry out, even though no part of that amount was actually spent. The Department disallowed the expenditure.

Held, (i) that the undertaking to carry out the developments within six months from the dates of the deeds of sale (which, in view of the fact that time was not of the essence of the contract, meant a reasonable time) was unconditional, the appellant binding itself absolutely to carry out the same. That undertaking imported a liability on the appellant which accrued on the dates of the deeds of sale, though that liability was to be discharged at a future date. It was thus an accrued liability and the estimated expenditure which would be incurred in discharging the same could be deducted from the profits and gains of the business, and the amount to be expended could be debited in accounts maintained in the mercantile system of accounting before it was actually disbursed. The difficulty in the estimation thereof did not convert the accrued liability into a conditional one, because it was always open to the Income-tax authorities concerned to arrive at a proper estimate thereof having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

(ii) That the sum of Rs. 24,809 represented the estimated amount which would have to be expended by the assessee in the course of carrying on its business and was incidental to the business and, having regard to the accepted commercial practice and trading principles, was a deduction which, if there was no specific provision for it under section 10(2) of the Income-tax Act, was certainly an allowable deduction, in arriving at the profits and gains of the business of the appellant, under section 10(1) of the Act, there being no prohibition against it, express or implied, in the Act.

ITA 873 & 874/JP/2016 10 ACIT Vs. Mayura Infrastructure Devlp. Co.

The expression "profits or gains" in section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act has to be understood in its commercial sense and there can be no computation of such profits and gains until the expenditure which is necessary for the purpose of earning the receipts is deducted therefrom-whether the expenditure is actually incurred or the liability in respect thereof has accrued even though it may have to be discharged at some future date. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above

judgments, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A),

therefore, revenue’s appeal being ITA No. 873/JP/2016 stands dismissed.

made in ITA No. 874/JP/2016 is similar and identical as facts mentioned

in ITA No. 873/JP/2016, therefore, findings given in ITA No. 873/JP/2016

shall be applicable in this case also. Accordingly, the revenue’s appeal

being ITA No. 874/JP/2016 is also stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25/04/2017.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼dqy Hkkjr½ ¼Hkkxpan½ (Kul Bharat) (BHAGCHAND) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 25th April, 2017 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The ACIT, Central circle-1, Jaipur. 1.

ITA 873 & 874/JP/2016 11 ACIT Vs. Mayura Infrastructure Devlp. Co. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- M/s Mayura Infrastructure Development 2. Company, Madanganj, Kishangarh. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 873 & 874/JP/2016) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत