RELIABLE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(1), MUMBAI

Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य, राजे�� राजे�� केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ PER RAJENDRA, AM- लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य राजे�� राजे�� अनुसार अनुसार Challenging the order dated 19/09/2016 of CIT(A)-21,Mumbai,the Assessee has filed the present appeal.Assessee-company,engaged in the business of construction,filed its return of income on 30/09/2012,declaring total income of (-)Rs.2,15,477/-.The Assessing Officer(AO) completed the assessment,u/s.143(3) of Act,on 27/03/2015,determining its income at Rs.3.93 crores. 2.Vide its application,dtd.7/12/2017,the assessee company has made a request for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.The application is accompanied by an affidavit dated 13/10/ 2017 of Arun N.Jhaveri,one of the Directors.In the application and the affidavit,it is stated that due to stalemate and restrained relationship among the directors of the company and non- availablility of Vinod Bathia,who had access to necessary details,the assessee could not file the appeal before the Tribunal in time,that the strained relationship of directors was visible from the fact that returns for the AY.s 2016-17 and 2017-18 were not filed till October 2017, that the delay was purely unintentional and was caused due to non availability of directors holding all the details.During the course of hearing before us,the Authorised Representative (AR),reiterated the facts that are part of the applications/affidavit. He further stated that there was reasonable cause of delay and therefore,same should be condoned. The Departmental Representative (DR),left the issue to the discretion of the Bench.

6241/M/17-Reliable Developers Pvt.Ltd.

We have heard the rival submissions.We find that there is a delay of 299 days in filing the appeal,that one of the directors has brought out the facts about strained relationship of directors and non availability of one of the directors.Considering the facts narrated in the affidavit,we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for condoning the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay. 3.First effective Ground of appeal(GOA-2)is about upholding an estimated addition of Rs.2. 36 crores.During the assessment proceedings,the AO found that the assessee had shown current liability of Rs.3.18 crores in the balance sheet. He directed it to file further details in that regard.After considering the same,he observed that there was gross advance received against contract of Rs.7.94 crores,that after netting off the advance paid(Rs.4.75 crores),the net amount was shown at Rs.3.18 crores, that the assessee had not filed the addresses of the parties from whom he had received advances.He further called for the details and held that the assessee had only one project at Kandivili West, that the project consisted of residential and commercial projects,that the closing WIP was shown at Rs.7.31 crores,that WIP included residential and commercial projects that the project was completed,that the assessee had booked sales of 66.75% of the commercial portion and 96.92% of residential portion in the earlier years(till end of AY.2012-13),that the closing WIP valued at Rs.7.31 crores represent - ed value of balance of commercial and residential component of the project which includes the residential and commercial project,that the project was completed and the assessee had booked sales of 66.75% of the commercial and 96.92% of the residential portion in earlier years and till the end of AY.2012-13,that the closing WIP valued at Rs.7,31,67,749/- represen -ted the balance 33.25% of commercial and 3.08% of the residential component of the project.The AO was of the view that the advance received of Rs.7,94,34,445/-against the unsold stock far exceeded the cost,that the project was sold out but the sales had not been booked and offered as income.He computed the profit on advance received i.e. on Rs.7,94, 34,445/-.He computed the gross profit ratio of 29.79% based on the gross profit disclosed on commercial component and thereby computed the unrecognized gross profit on the advances which was computed at Rs.2,36,63,521/-.He added the said sum to the income of the assessee. 4.Aggrieved by the order of the AO,the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA)and made elaborate submissions After considering the submissions of the assessee and the assessment order,the FAA held that the breakup of the items shown as liabilities Rs.3,18,50,717/- was not clear,that the details of debit balances and receivable of 6241/M/17-Reliable Developers Pvt.Ltd. commercial premises party wise was not filed,that perusal of the tabulation filed by the AR of the year wise income recognised and net profit as per P & L account showed that the assessee had been showing losses right from AY.2008-09 onwards,that the entire amount of Rs 151 lakhs had been received from Ganesh Tele Video Agencies Pvt. Ltd. as per agreement dated 23.04.2009,that the entire sales to Ganesh Tele Video was not recognised,that same was the position in the cases oother purchasers,that there was merit in the AO’s contention,that he had rightly not accepted the accounting results filed by the assesse,that in the case of some of the customers the amount was shown as receipts towards parking,that it was not clear whether it had been offered as income,that the assessee was delaying the recognition of revenue and was claiming losses,that the AO had estimated the profits.Finally,he upheld the additions made by the AO. 5.Before us,the AR argued that the method of accounting and recognition of revenue had been followed for all preceding and succeeding years consistently and regularly,that same method was accepted in earlier years,while passing order u/s.143(3)of the Act for AY.s 2008- 09,2009-10,2010-11&2011-12,that the amounts received from the buyers of Shops/Office/ Flats/Additional Area was credited to the respective purchaser’s account,that sales were recognised from year to year based on percentage completion of construction method and had been debited to Receivable of Commercial Premises,that the net figure of above two accounts i.e.Purchasers Account and Receivable of Commercial Premises were shown as Current Liabilities in "Schedule 7" of the Audited Balance Sheet,that the purchaser-account would be debited for purchase price,service tax and VAT on possession,that the assessee had recognis- ed revenue of Rs.1,35,34,865/-during the year and total revenue of Rs.13,95,62,016/-till 31 . 03.2012.Referring to the Schedule 7,he gave the details of current liabilities of the assessee and stated that the debit balance on purchases account of Rs.1,22,12,654/- represented the income recognized as per the accounting method but not received from the purchasers of the premises till date,that the net advance was Rs.6,70,50,365/-and not Rs.3,18,50,717/-,that it was lower than the closing WIP of Rs.7,31,67,749/-,that the conclusion of the AO that advances received against the unsold stock far exceeded the cost and that the project was completely sold out was factually incorrect,that method adopted by the departmental authorities was erroneous,that the construction project having been sold out did not give rise to recognition of revenue unless the construction of the building as per approved plan was completed.

6241/M/17-Reliable Developers Pvt.Ltd.

He further argued that in the month of February jurisdiction of the AO was transferred,that the details could not be filed because of the change of AO.s.,that the departmental authorities had not rejected the books of accounts,that the assessee had filed audited results,that they made additions on ad hoc basis,that there was no agreement to sell the remaining 3.68% of the residential property in the year under consideration,that while passing the order u/s. 143(3)of the Act for the next AY.,the AO added same amounts. 6.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.We find that the assessee had started one project and same was in progress since AY.2007-08,that it was following mercantile method of accounting,that it recognised revenue on percentage completion method as per the accounting standards of ICAI,that the AO and the FAA had not doubted the method followed by it for recognising the revenue, that they had not rejected the books of accounts of the assessee.As per the established principles of taxation,in project completion method the advances received from purchasers will have no relationship with the construction work completed and that the revenue has to be recognised on the basis of construction work and not on the basis of advances received.The AO and the FAA did not consider this basic principle.It is found that the AO had worked gross profit on work in progress which meant that the gross profit was determined from the expenses which was pending to be allowed. Without allowing corresponding expenses,the AO should not taxed the income portion of the transaction.A perusal of Schedule 7 reveal as to the current liability of Rs.Rs.3,18,50,717/- was explained.Both the departmental authorities did not consider the calculation or ignored it. There is no evidence that that the net advance was not Rs.6,70, 50, 365/-,as claimed by the assessee in the Schedule 7.In other words,the figure adopted by the AO/FAA at Rs.3,18, 50, 717/- under the head net advance was factually incorrect.If the net advance was of Rs. 6.70 crores then same was lower than the closing WIP of Rs.7.31 crores. The sole basis of making the addition was that advances were more than closing WIP. Considering these facts we are of the opinion that matter needs further verification and correct appreciation of facts. 6.1.We have also taken note of the fact that in the earlier years the AO had accepted the method of accounting followed by the assessee,while completing the assessment u/s.143(3)of the Act. He has not given any reason as to why he was not satisfied with the method for the year under consideration.It is true that principles of res judicata do not apply to income tax proceedings,but principles of consistency apply.So,if an AO wants to deviate from the path followed in the earlier year,he has to give reasons for it.We do not find any such reasons in 6241/M/17-Reliable Developers Pvt.Ltd. the assessment order.Besides,the income from sale of remaining residential property has been taxed in the next assessment year also.No double deduction and no double taxation is the fundamental principle of taxation jurisprudence. Considering the above,we are of the opinion that,in the interest of justice,the matter should be restored back to the file of the FAA for fresh adjudication.He is directed to dispose of the matter with in a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.He would afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.Ground no. 2 is allowed in favour of the assessee,in part. 7.Next Ground is in respect of the addition made of Rs.1,59,22,968/- on account of variation in sale prices.While completing the assessment,the AO analysed the details of the sales agreement and the units of offices sold in respect of the commercial component.He observed that there was large variation between the rates in respect of the shops sold.He summarised such 11 transactions and computed the average rate of sale per sq.ft at Rs.6026/-per sq.ft. whereas the maximum rate per sq.ft. was Rs.9,044/-.He held that the total area sold during the year was 5276 sq.ft. On the basis that the sales rate should be 9,044/- sq.ft.,the AO made an estimate of suppressed sales at Rs.1,59,22,968/- for the year by multiplying 5276 sq.ft with the difference in maximum sales price and the average sales price at Rs.3,018/-. 8.In the appellate proceedings,the assessee submitted that 11 agreements that were registered during the year under consideration and stated that the shops/offices were sold in the earlier years,that the agreements registered during the year were only 12.22 % of total 90 units pertaining to the entire project,that the AO had considered the registration date and not booking date to conclude that the units were sold during the span of time,that the AO had considered 11 agreements registered during the year from the entire project and calculated average selling rate,that approach of the AO was incorrect.The FAA directed the assessee to file dates of booking,areas of office premises sold,agreement values,market values etc. The FAA,after considering the available material,held that even after considering the date of booking, there was inexplicable variations in the rate per square feet shown by the appellant. He referred to some of the sale transactions where variation in the rates was found.He observed that in several cases the rate per sq.ft. as per agreement was lower than stamp duty value,that large variations in rates indicated that sales realization was under reported,that the assessee was showing losses year after year.Finally,he upheld the additions,made by the AO, ‘in principle’. But,he directed the AO to consider only the additional area area and rate of Rs 5040 sq.ft. stated in the agreement in two cases while computing the addition.

6241/M/17-Reliable Developers Pvt.Ltd.