THE ITO, WD-1, KANNUR vs. M/S.RAINBOW REALTORS, KANNUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order cryptic and that it misconstrued the assessee's plea. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and examination of all materials.
What were the facts?
The assessee debited substantial provisions for expenses to its project accounts. The Assessing Officer disallowed these provisions for lack of details and added them back to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating the provisions were not debited to the profit and loss account.
What were the issues?
Whether provisions for expenses debited to project accounts, rather than the profit and loss account, are disallowable. The genuineness and financing of increased work-in-progress were also questioned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH: COCHIN
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by revenue is directed against order of CIT(A) Kozhikode Kerala dated 26.2.2020 for the assessment year 2014- 15. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:-
“The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erred in law as well as in facts by giving relief to the assessee by allowing the provision for expenses. The increase of Rs.1,66,08,399/-being provision for expenses under the /Cochin/2020 M/s. Rainbow Realtors, Kannur
Page 2 of 5 head "other payable" during the current year was added back by the AO as the details called for was not provided. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the assessee has not claimed the expenses in the profit and loss account and therefore it was not disallowable. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erred in facts by giving relief to the assessee without proving the genuineness of the liabilities.
4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) arrived at the conclusion without considering the fact that if there is corresponding increase in work in progress then what will be the expenses claimed when recognizing the sales. The decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is without appreciating the fact of the case and not considering the fact that, when the income was recognized in subsequent years, the work in progress is claimed as expenditure and therefore there will be inflation of expenses.
The decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is without appreciating the complete facts of the case that if there is addition to work in progress during the year under question, then how this increase was actually financed. The increase in work in progress was financed by increase in provisions. The increase in provisions does not bring fund and therefore when actual work in progress has increased, the source for this remains unexplained.” 2. Though assessee stated that there was a delay of 161 days in filing before this Tribunal, in our opinion, the delay of 161 days is during Covid period which need not be explained, in view of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in MA No.665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 dated 23.9.2021 (Suo motu), wherein held that “in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.3.2020 till 14.3.2021 shall stand excluded”. Accordingly, there is no delay.
Facts of the issue are that as noted by Assessing Officer, during the previous year under consideration, the assessee firm has devoted more attention to the projects Raintree, Rainscape /Cochin/2020 M/s. Rainbow Realtors, Kannur
Page 3 of 5 and Raintree Nest. On examination of details furnished, the AO noticed that the assessee has debited the following amounts to the respective projects as provision for expenses:
Rainscape Rs. 1,44,53,989/- Raintree Rs. 40,03,905/- Rain Nest Rs. 10,46,009/- Total Rs. 1,95,03,903/- 3.1 AO further observed that the assessee has completed and sold residential unit to various customers out of their projects mentioned above. The AO noted that the assessee has debited all the expenditure in the books of accounts and to inflate the expenses incurred in the construction of residential units, the assessee has made provisions for expenses. The Ld. AR of the assessee had no valid explanation for the provisions debited and failed to adduce any documentary evidence to substantiate the expenses debited in the books of accounts. As per the AO, the provisions debited in the books of accounts by the assessee was not in order. Therefore, he disallowed the same and added to the income declared by the assessee and completed the assessment accordingly. Aggrieved, the assessee filed this appeal.
3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting. As per ledger copy of accounts produced before him, the assessee is not debiting 'provision for expenses' in profit & loss account, but these expenses are debited to 'work in progress' of each project account. The 'work in progress' account is a running account and at year end or at time of sale, proportionate 'work in /Cochin/2020 M/s. Rainbow Realtors, Kannur
Page 4 of 5 progress' is transferred to profit and loss account as cost of sale or expenses corresponding to sales. Sales is credited in profit & loss account at same time. The corresponding 'work in progress' for that project is reduced by amount transferred to profit & loss account. The Assessing Officer has not appreciated the accounting method and without brining any material on record or examining books of accounts or rejecting it, disallowed the provision of expenses which were never debited by assessee in profit & loss account. The A.O. has not examined or even mentioned work in progress account maintained by assessee for each project so as to doubt the genuineness of expenses. The order of AO is clearly flawed and without appreciating the accounting principles and facts of the case. Considering this, the addition of Rs.1,95,03,903/- is deleted by Ld. CIT(A).
3.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is very cryptic and he has considered the provisions for expenses as work in progress which was not the plea of assessee before the AO. Hence, this plea of the assessee has to be examined at the end of the AO. Accordingly, the issue is remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration. All the materials, which has not produced by the assessee before CIT(A) are to be produced before AO for his consideration. /Cochin/2020 M/s. Rainbow Realtors, Kannur
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th Sept, 2022
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026