9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1353 - AT - Income TaxAccrual of income - Treatment to contingent sales - realization of income - assessment of income of the assessee - Held that - The impugned contingent sale on account of differential sale price claimed by the assessee which was pending before the ATE for adjudication is not accrued to the assessee as revenue for the relevant financial year. The assessee has rightly recognized the revenue as per the sale price fixed by the state government which is the real income accrued to the assessee as per the prevailing situation. The additional claim made by the assessee is a mere claim which was not settled by the authorities. Unless the issue is settled, the assessee cannot recognize its revenue merely based on its claim. The assessee has rightly treated the difference between sale price claimed and the price paid by the APTRANSCO as contingent sales. See Godhara Electricity Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 1997 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court wherein held that the income accrued to the assessee has to be considered by taking the probability of realization of income and in case if the amount to be realized is under dispute, there was no real income accrues to the assessee. CIT(A) after considering the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly deleted the additions made by the A.O. We do not see any error or infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Recognition of revenue on accrual basis. 2. Treatment of contingent sales. 3. Compliance with Accounting Standards. 4. Consistency in the method of accounting. 5. Determination of real income vs. hypothetical income. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Recognition of revenue on accrual basis: The core issue was whether the disputed sales revenue of ?82,35,112/- should be recognized as income for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee, a public limited company engaged in manufacturing and sale of fatty acids and generation of Bio-Mass Power, had raised invoices at an escalated rate but recognized revenue as per the interim price fixed by the State Government. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) contended that since invoices were raised, the revenue should be recognized on an accrual basis as per the mercantile system of accounting. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal held that the revenue should be recognized based on real income, considering the uncertainty due to ongoing litigation before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE). 2. Treatment of contingent sales: The A.O. added ?82,35,112/- to the taxable income, arguing that the assessee had an absolute right to receive this amount. The assessee treated this as contingent sales, citing uncertainty in collectability due to pending litigation. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal supported the assessee's treatment, emphasizing that the revenue recognition should reflect real income and not hypothetical income. They referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Godhra Electricity Company Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that income under dispute does not accrue until the dispute is resolved. 3. Compliance with Accounting Standards: The A.O. argued that the assessee's method was inconsistent with Accounting Standard-9 (AS-9) issued by the ICAI, which requires revenue to be recognized when it is measurable and collectible. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the assessee's method complied with AS-9, as the uncertainty in collectability justified the deferred recognition of disputed revenue. The Tribunal noted that the assessee made appropriate disclosures in the financial statements, adhering to the AS-9 guidelines. 4. Consistency in the method of accounting: The A.O. claimed inconsistency in the assessee's accounting method, as it recognized revenue for power supplied above 2.4 MW at billed rates but not for power supplied up to 2.4 MW. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal found the assessee's method consistent with its historical practice and compliant with statutory requirements. They noted that the assessee followed the mercantile system and AS-9 consistently, recognizing revenue based on the interim price fixed by the State Government while treating the disputed amount as contingent sales. 5. Determination of real income vs. hypothetical income: The Tribunal emphasized that revenue should be recognized based on real income, not hypothetical figures. They cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Godhra Electricity Company Ltd. vs. CIT, which stated that income under dispute does not accrue until the dispute is resolved. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee rightly recognized revenue based on the interim price fixed by the State Government, as the disputed amount was uncertain and contingent on the outcome of litigation before the ATE. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of ?82,35,112/-, supporting the assessee's treatment of the disputed amount as contingent sales. They found the assessee's method consistent with AS-9 and the mercantile system of accounting, recognizing revenue based on real income and reflecting uncertainty in collectability due to ongoing litigation. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
|
