Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “B” BENCH
Order u/s 254(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(the Act) O R D E R �याियक सद�य के अनुसार Per Mahavir Singh,JM :
This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of order of CIT(A)-21, Mumbai in Appeal No.CIT(A)-21/IT/329/ 2011-12, order dated 02/04/2012. Assessment was framed by ITO, Ward 10(1)(1), Mumbai under section 143(3)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2009-10 vide his order dated 08/12/2011.
4647/M/12- Better Builders IPL
The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of work-in-progress made by Assessing Officer of Rs.1,28,65,961/-. For this, Revenue has raised following Ground No.1:-
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,28,65,961/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee has undisclosed the Revenue of 11% in respect of value of the contract.”
At the outset, the assessee stated that this is a consistent issue and the Tribunal in AY 2007-08 in its appeal No.6788/Mum/2010 vide order dated 23.10.2012, exactly on identical facts, deleted the addition by observing in para-5 as under :-
“5. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that there is no need to disturb the CIT (A) findings. AO has not made out any case why an amount of Rs.1,10,49,765/- should be brought to tax as the amount was shown as work-in- progress and has not yet been billed to the land owner. Consistency in following accounting principles also does not allow the said amount to be treated as income of the year and in fact the same amount was offered in later year when the amount was billed. Further AO also was not correct in bringing the entire amount as income ignoring the corresponding expenditure of Rs.93,85,949/-. This only shows that AO has not applied his mind, has not given proper reasons why he is disturbing assessee’s accounting principles and why the said amount is the income of assessee when in fact it is only a contract amount which was not yet billed pending the certification by the architect. For these reasons, we reject the grounds of the Revenue and confirm the order of the CIT (A ).”
We have gone through the assessment order and order of CIT(A) and noticed that both the authorities below have relied on the assessment framed in assessment year 2007-08, which was subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has deleted the addition. In view of the above facts, we are of the view that the issue is squarely covered by the Tribunal decision in assessee’s own case cited supra.
Respectfully following the same we confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
4647/M/12- Better Builders IPL