Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 24 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Revenue recognition against advances received - As per CIT AO has not carried out requisite enquiries and also not applied his mind with respect to revenue recognition in respect of the advances received by the assessee and with respect to and utilisation of these advances - excess advance beyond 5% under current liabilities which should have taken to the profit and loss account - PCIT observed that the advance received for the purpose of the projects was diverted and used for illiquid investments in private limited companies which cannot be liquidated - HELD THAT:- Given the accepted past history of the case, and given the fact that there were no material factual or legal developments in the relevant financial period, it was not at all unreasonable on the part of the Assessing Officer not to question the revenue recognition policy followed by the assessee. There were no reasons to provoke such an inquiry. The revenue recognition policy followed by the assessee is in accordance with the Accounting Standard – 7 ‘Construction Contracts’ to recognise revenue on project completion basis which is a generally acceptable accounting policy and is undisputed. Investment made by the assessee in the illiquid funds, in our view, this is the decision of the board to decide how the funds of the company to be utilised in its best interest and it is the affected party i.e., Lalitpur Power Generation Co Ltd, who had paid the contract price more than the certified work completion, can object the diversion of funds other than intended purpose. The revenue has no role to play how the funds are being utilized by the assessee, it can only analyse the method of accounting adopted consistently and offered the proper income for taxation. Beyond that they don’t have any role to play and they are not expected to enter the shoes of the assessee how their affairs have to be carried out. In the given case, the Assessing Officer had verified the method of accounting in detail and the assessment was also selected (limited scrutiny- to verify contract receipt and current liabilities are genuine) for specifically to verify the recognition of revenue adopted by the assessee. It is fact on record that assessee is following recognised method accounting standard, AS-7 published by ICAI and Assessing Officer has not found any mistake in the revenue recognition and moreover, the revenue can be recognised only on the agreement of both parties by critically evaluating the progress of the project, it merely cannot be based on the receipt of funds. It is the other party who makes the payment, who has not objected or had not made any claim against the misuse of the advance of funds other than the intended purpose. As long as the contracting parties are in agreement with the certification of the progress of the project, the revenue has very little role to play in the revenue recognition and investment activities. We do agree that revenue can always make enquiries and once the assessing authority is satisfied with the submissions on the revenue recognition, which the assessee is following consistently then the matter has to rest at that stage. The Ld.Pr.CIT cannot impose of his another possible view in this circumstances even after detailed enquiry by the Assessing Officer. Thus assessment order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the issue of advances received by the assessee has been thoroughly examined by the AO as is evident in the light of evidence filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. Pr.CIT was incorrect in setting aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act. Hence, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. Pr.CIT u/s 263 restore the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|