Mrs. Indrapuram Habitat Centre Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2416/DEL/2013 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 241620114 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAGCS4747R
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2416/DEL/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant Mrs. Indrapuram Habitat Centre Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 27-09-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 30-08-2016
Next Hearing Date 30-08-2016
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 25-04-2013
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU J.M. AND SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY AM ITA NO: 2416 /DEL/201 3 AY : 200 9 - 10 INDRAPURAM HABITAT CENTRE P.LTD. VS. ITO WARD 11(4) C/O RAVI GUPTA ADV. NEW DELHI E 6A KAILASH COLONY NEW DELHI 110 048 PAN: AAGCS 4747 R ITA NO: 4930 /DEL/201 3 AY : 200 7 - 08 DY. CIT CIRCLE 11(1) VS. INDRAPURAM HABITAT CENTRE NEW DELHI P.LTD. NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY : SH. PC YADAV ADV. RE VENUE BY : SH. A MRIT LAL SR. DR O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 2416/DEL/10 IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 AND AND ITA 4930 /DEL/10 IS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08. 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL COMPLEX. 3. THE SOLE ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) WAS RIG HT IN ADOPTING PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD FOR RECOGNIZING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD CHOSEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT ACCOUNTING STANDARD 7 (A.S. 7) IS MANDATORY AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE ADOPTED PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT AS - 7 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ASSESSEE AS IT IS BUILDER AND DEVELOPER AND NOT A CONTRACTOR PER SE. THE FINDING OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A MERE CONTRACTOR IS DISPUTED ON FACTS BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER AND NOT A CONTRACTOR AS HELD BY THE LD.CIT(A). THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS (A.Y.) HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS IN THE R E A L E S T A T E BUSINESS. ON THESE FACTS WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF HAWAR E CONSTRUCTION S P.LTD. VS. ITO (2011) 64 D TR 251 WHEREIN IT IS HELD AS FOLLOWS. 3 THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDERS AND DURING THE A.Y. 2004 - 05 THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. THE SUBMISSION OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY REMEDIAL MEASURE U/S 263 OR 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) FOR THE A.Y. 2004 - 05 AND 2006 - 07 EVEN AFTER THE ORDER OF THE AO AND CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06 COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED B Y THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. THE AO DURING THE ASST. YR. 2006 - 07 HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS NOT DISTURBED THE INCOME BY MAKING ANY ESTIMATED INCOME ON THE WORK - IN - PROGRESS. THERE IS ALSO MERIT I N THE SUBMISSION OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED HUGE INCOME IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AFTER COMPLETION OF THE SAID PROJECT AS AGAINST MEAGRE INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE AO. THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD IS AN ACCEPTED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOR BUILDERS. THE ASSESSEE IS REGULARLY FOLLOWING THIS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN THE PRECEDING AS WELL AS IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. FURTHER THE AS - 7 AS DISCUSSED BY THE AO AND THE CIT(A) IS APPLICABLE O NLY FOR CONTRACTORS ENGAGED IN THE CIVIL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS AND THE SAME DOES NOT APPLY TO BUILDERS/DEVELOPERS. IT IS AN ESTABLISHED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT AN ASSESSEE CAN FOLLOW ANY RECOGNIZED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND THE CONDITION IS THAT THE SAME M ETHOD HAS TO BE FOLLOWED CONSISTENTLY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS REGULARLY FOLLOWING THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD AND HAS OFFERED THE INCOME IN THE YEAR OF COMPLETION OF PROJECT THERE IS 4 NO SOUND REASON AS TO WHY THE SAME SHOULD BE RE JECTED AND PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD BE FOLLOWED. AWADESH BUILDERS VS. ITO (2010) 37 SOT 122 (MUMBAI) PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS (P) LTD. VS. DY. CIT (2010) 129 TTJ (BANG) 680 : (2010) 33 DTR (BANG)(TRIB) 514 FOLLOWED. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE HOLD THAT A.S. - 7 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. HENCE THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE CONSISTENTLY OVER THE YEARS HAS TO BE UPHELD. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 7 T H SEPTEMBER 2016 S D / - S D / - (H.S. SIDHU) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 2 7 T H S EPTEMBER 2016 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARD ED TO: 5 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR