9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstruction of a property at Morechiwadi, Opposite to Wadala Teephone Exchange, Dadar (East) under Slum Redevelopment Scheme. The project was sanctioned in the year 2004 and was completed in the year 2010 relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The assessee followed "Percentage completion method" for offering income from this project in the earlier years. During the year under consideration, it appears that the assessee has offered full revenue relating to the flats, which the assessee is entitled to sell. The sale consideration is stated to be Rs. 4,87,60,500/-. 3. As per the Slum Redevelopment Scheme, the assessee is required to construct 1140.52 Sq. mt. of built up premises towards Municipal Staff Quarters and 54.99 Sq. mt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and before the AO, i.e., at one stage, it has claimed that the project was completed 100% and later it was submitted that the project was completed at 95%. The AO also noticed that the assessee has not expended any amount against the provision till the date of assessment order (31.12.2012, i.e., even after two years). The assessee claimed that it has spent following amounts in respect of this project in the succeeding years:- F.Y 2010-11 28,67,346/- (Approx) F.Y 2011-12 14,30,689/- (Approx) F.Y 2012-13 (till date) 2,63,223/- (Approx) The AO noticed that the assessee did not furnish any specific figures of expenditure incurred by it against the provision made with relevant evidences. Accordingly, the AO did not agree with the claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t free of cost to M.C.G.M. 7. On the contrary, the ld D.R submitted that the assessee has not constructed any building till date and the assessee has also failed to show that it has incurred any amount against the provision made by it. Hence the liability claimed by the assessee is a contingent liability only and hence the Ld CIT(A) was justified in upholding the order of the AO. 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record. The dispute, as we understand, is whether the provision of Rs. 1.22 crores made by the assessee is towards an ascertained liability or towards a contingent liability. The assessee heavily places reliance on the terms and conditions of sanction of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme to show that it is liable to con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gent upon handing over of the relevant portion of land to the assessee. Even though the assessee has claimed to have completed the project in the year relevant to the financial year 2010-11, yet the Ld CIT(A) has noticed that the assessee was not given the land till 2013 (even after expiry of more than three years). Further, the assessee also could not show that it did incur any expenditure against the provision so made by it. As pointed out by Ld CIT(A), the question of incurring expenditure would arise only upon handing over of the relevant portion of land to the assessee. These facts support of the case of the revenue that there is no clarify as to whether the assessee is required to discharge the said liability or not. In the absence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
