2025 (7) TMI 46 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance on account of loss on Amritsar project written off - year of crystallisation - main thrust of the lower authorities was that the said loss has not crystallized in the year under consideration and that the said loss is capital in nature and hence the said loss was disallowed - assessee company is in the business of real estate promotion and development in residential and commercial segment and undertook one real estate project in Amritsar - HELD THAT - We find that the lower authorities were of the opinion that the entire dispute stood resolved between Shri K N Shukla group and Shri Anil Jain group in Assessment Year 2010-11 itself which is factually incorrect. It could be seen that even after the arbitration award dated 26-4-2007 the disputes between the parties remained and these were finally resolved vide compromise deed dated 20-7-2012 executed between the parties i.e Shri K N Shukla and his group companies and Shri Anil Jain and his group companies. Hence the effective date when the matter was put to rest is the date of compromise deed dated 20-7- 2012 and not 14-7-2009 as stated by the lower authorities. The documents relating to the continuation of disputes between the parties post 14-7-2009 were placed in the Supplementary Paper Book filed before this Tribunal in the original round of proceedings before this Tribunal. Hence on perusal of the documentary evidences enclosed in Supplementary Paper Book we are convinced of the fact that the disputes had continued between the parties upto 20-7-2012 and the same were put to rest only pursuant to compromise deed dated 20-7- 2012. Hence it could be safely concluded that the loss on Amritsar Project got crystallized on 20-7-2012 only. The assessee had given convincing explanation already as to why the loss on Amritsar Project that stood finally settled on 20-7-2012 had been claimed as deduction in Assessment Year 2012-13 instead of Assessment Year 2013-14. Moreover it is pertinent to note that the tax rates remained the same from Assessment Years 2010-11 onwards. Hence there would be no loss to the exchequer with regard to the tax portion if the deduction is allowed in either of the years. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd 2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT wherein it was held that the revenue should not have any grievance when the rate of tax remained the same in the year under consideration in the earlier year and in the subsequent year and thereby making the entire dispute raised by the revenue academic.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

• Whether the disallowance of loss amounting to Rs 64,72,52,645/- on account of the Amritsar real estate project written off by the assessee was justified under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
• Whether the loss claimed by the assessee in Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 was a revenue loss or a capital loss.
• Whether the loss on the Amritsar Project had crystallized in AY 2010-11 or in AY 2012-13, i.e., the correct year of allowance of the loss deduction.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Justification of disallowance of loss on Amritsar Project

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The loss was disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, primarily on the grounds that the loss was capital in nature and related to a prior period (AY 2010-11), thus not deductible in AY 2012-13. The Tribunal considered the principles under Accounting Standard-4 (AS-4) relating to "Events occurring after the Balance Sheet Date" and relevant judicial precedents including the Apex Court decision in CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd (358 ITR 295) and the Delhi High Court ruling in CIT vs Dinesh Kumar Goel (331 ITR 10).

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the assessee was engaged in real estate business, and the Amritsar project was a current asset in the ordinary course of business. The loss arose from abandonment of the project due to disputes between directors leading to arbitration and eventual compromise. The genuineness of the loss was not disputed by the AO or CIT(A). The Tribunal held that since the loss arose in the ordinary course of business and related to current assets, it was a revenue loss and not a capital loss.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee had shown the investments in the Amritsar project under current assets and claimed the loss in the profit and loss account. The loss arose from abandonment of the project following arbitration and compromise deeds. The AO and CIT(A) did not question the genuineness of the loss but disallowed it on technical grounds.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the accounting principles under AS-4 and the matching principle to hold that the loss was revenue in nature and deductible in the year it crystallized. The Tribunal rejected the lower authorities' contention that the loss was capital in nature.

Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue argued that the loss related to AY 2010-11 and was capital in nature, hence not deductible in AY 2012-13. The assessee countered that the disputes continued beyond AY 2010-11 and the loss crystallized only on execution of the compromise deed in July 2012. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument based on documentary evidence.

Conclusion: The disallowance on the ground of capital loss was rejected and the loss was held to be allowable as a revenue loss.

Issue 2: Year of crystallization of loss and correct year of allowance

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The timing of recognition of loss is critical under the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal relied on the legal principle that the loss must be allowed in the year in which it crystallizes. The Apex Court decision in CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd emphasized that when tax rates remain unchanged, the revenue does not suffer any loss by allowing deduction in a subsequent year. The Delhi High Court in CIT vs Dinesh Kumar Goel also held that tax revenue is not prejudiced if income or loss is recognized in a subsequent year when tax rates remain constant.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in concluding that the dispute was resolved in AY 2010-11 based on the dismissal of an appeal by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2009. The Tribunal noted that disputes continued until the compromise deed executed on 20-7-2012, which effectively settled the matter. Therefore, the loss crystallized only on that date and was rightly claimed in AY 2012-13.

Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal examined the Supplementary Paper Book filed by the assessee containing documents showing continuation of disputes post 2009, including FIRs, court orders, and the compromise deed of 2012. The Tribunal found these documents convincing and determinative of the crystallization date.

Application of law to facts: Applying the principle that loss deduction is allowable in the year of crystallization, the Tribunal held that AY 2012-13 was the correct year for allowance. The Tribunal also observed that since tax rates remained unchanged from AY 2010-11 onwards, there was no prejudice to revenue in allowing the deduction in AY 2012-13.

Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue argued that the loss should be disallowed in AY 2012-13 because it arose earlier. The assessee demonstrated with documentary evidence that the dispute and consequent loss crystallization occurred only in 2012. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's position, rejecting the revenue's contention as factually incorrect.

Conclusion: The loss on the Amritsar project crystallized in AY 2012-13 and is allowable in that year.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal made the following crucial legal determinations:

"Since the said loss had arose in the ordinary course of business of the assessee, it cannot be construed as a capital loss. Further the assessee herein is engaged in the business of real estate and had shown the investments made in Amritsar project under the head 'Current Assets' and hence the loss arising under the said project would only be revenue loss. Hence the second objection raised by the lower authorities to disallow the loss is hereby rejected."

"It could be safely concluded that the loss on Amritsar Project got crystallized on 20-7-2012 only."

"The tax rates remained the same from Assessment Years 2010-11 onwards. Hence there would be no loss to the exchequer with regard to the tax portion if the deduction is allowed in either of the years."

"The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd held that the revenue should not have any grievance when the rate of tax remained the same in the year under consideration, in the earlier year and in the subsequent year and thereby making the entire dispute raised by the revenue academic."

"The loss on Amritsar Project which was sought to be written off by the assessee during the year under consideration in the sum of Rs 64,72,52,645/- would be an allowable deduction in Assessment Year 2012-13."

The Tribunal's final determination was to allow the grounds raised by the assessee challenging the disallowance of the loss on the Amritsar project and to hold that the loss was a revenue loss crystallized in AY 2012-13 and hence deductible in that year. The appeal was partly allowed accordingly.