TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding regarding the income for the second half of the year, more particularly considering that the construction cost had crystallized, and which would therefore obtain for the second half of the year as well, during which there has been economic activity by way of sales – This would become much more apparent and striking in view of the glaring and vast unexplained differences between the results obtaining for the two parts - the matter is factually indeterminate, it would be fit and proper that the issue of determination of income for the year is set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Revenue. - I.T.A. No. 548/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2014 - Shri Sanjay Arora, AM And Shri Amit Shukla, JM,JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was in the assessment proceedings called upon to explain the difference of Rs.1,69,04,253/-. The assessee attributed the same to some financial miscalculations, which though it was unable to substantiate, so that the income stood assessed at Rs.4,24,35,127/-, i.e., by adopting the cost at Rs.1,550/- per sq. ft. and Rs.1,660/- per sq. ft. for the area sold in relation of Wing A (15856.95 sq. ft.) and Wing B (1951 sq. ft.) of the said project during the year, enhancing the returned income of Rs.2,47,78,750/- by Rs.176.56 lacs. The assessee had inflated the opening work-in-progress (WIP), i.e., as on 01.4.2007, claiming it at Rs.824.22 lacs as against Rs.674.22 lacs, as confirmed at the time of survey, whereat the books of account were confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,127/- as against returned income of Rs.2,47,78,750/-. The ground of appeal Nos. 2 3 are allowed. 3. Before us, the Revenue s case was that even the acceptance of the remand report, which is not denied, does not result in a total acceptance of the assessee s claims and, thereby, in bringing down the income subject to tax to that as returned by the assessee, i.e., Rs.247.79 lacs. Toward this, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) would cause to place on record a copy of the statement of profit (up to the date of survey) at Rs. 2,83,75,357/-, i.e., in terms of the remand report, so that the income to be assessed is at least at that sum. The assessee, on the other hand, would insist that no addition whatsoever could be made as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date of survey (i.e., 08.10.2007). A meaningful reading thereto can only be ascribed by the employment of the words at-least prior to the words at the amount , and following the word assessed in the preceding sentence. This is for the simple reason that there is no gainsaying that, as afore-stated, it is only the income for the entire year, i.e., from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008, which is to be assessed as income and brought to tax. In other words, it could be nobody s case and is inconceivable that the Revenue intends to or would be satisfied where the income for the year is assessed at the profit of course worked correctly, upon rectifying the mistake/s that had imbued the initial working, and since removed per the remand report, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mport of the Revenue s first ground, as even removing the defects per the remand report would restore the income to that extent, as against Rs.247.79 lacs returned by the assessee. That would, however, by itself have no bearing on the income, if any, inuring to the assessee during the latter part of the year, and which would definitely warrant being assessed and subject to tax. That is, the same, positive or negative, cannot be a matter of presumption, and which explains the Revenue s ground no. 2, whereby it seeks to restore the assessment to the income as originally assessed, i.e., Rs. 424.35 lacs. Why would, one may ask, should it so agitate, if all that the Revenue seeks which though is without any basis in law, is the assessment of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,345 e) Profit (per sq. ft.) (c d) 1,593 (3,520) 40 f) Profit amount (Rs. in lacs) (b x e) 283.68 (273.47) 10.21 NB: P1= the period 01.04.2007 to 08.10.2007; P2 = from 09.10.2007 to 31.03.2008; the figures in brackets represent negative figures. Several questions arise. How could the sales be at a negative sum? That apart, how and under what circumstances, particularly considering that a substantial and significant part of Wings A and B of the project respectively stood already sold by 08.10.2007, was there an abrupt and sharp decline in the sale rates? Is it accompanied by a similar depression in the market, coinciding (or, nearly so) with the survey at the assessee s premises? Then, again, the net profit on the project wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
