DELHI
HIGH COURT - GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX
19.12.2018
Summarised Judgement (Scroll for Complete Judgement)
The appeals were admitted for hearing vide
order of this Court dated 24.01.2018 by framing the following substantial
question of law. Did the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) fall into error
in holding that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
was leviable in the circumstances of the case, when the assessee asserted that
it had commenced business at the relevant time? ITA Nos.398 & 399 of
2017
The facts which are required to be noticed
in the present appeals are rather short and brief.
1. The
appellant-assessee is a company engaged in real-estate development. Appellant-assessee had commenced construction
of two housing projects Lotus Boulevard and Lotus Panache in Noida, during the
period relevant to the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively.
2. The
appellant-assessee was following and recognizing revenue from the projects
based upon the Percentage of Completion Method of accounting (PoC Method for
short). PoC Method was recognized under the Accounting Standards 2002
prescribed and applicable namely, Accounting Standard 7 (AS-7 for short). ITA
Nos.398 & 399 of 2017 Page 4 of 18
3. Appellant-assessee
in the returns of income for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 had
declared loss of Rs.10,98,42,458/- and Rs.21,22,38,055/- respectively.
4. 4.5.
Appellant-assessee had not recognized revenue from the Lotus Boulevard and
Lotus Panache projects till construction and development had crossed threshold
of 30%. Till then the construction and development costs incurred was booked
under the head capital work in progress.
5. Threshold
of 30% of development for the Lotus Boulevard project was crossed during the
financial year relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-
The Assessing Officer observed and held
that the appellant-assessee had erroneously and wrongly booked indirect project
expenses relating two projects in the two years, while the revenue earned from
the Lotus Boulevard project was proportionately booked in in the assessment
year 2011-12 and revenue from Lotus Panache project was proportionately booked
in the assessment year 2012-13. Indirect costs like cost of construction and
development for the Lotus Boulevard project for the assessment year 2010-11 and
Lotus Panache project for the assessment year 2011-12 should be booked and
treated as capital work in progress. For this reason, addition of
Rs.11,03,88,382/- and Rs.21,28,05,101/- was made in the returned income for the
assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively.
7. The appellant-assessee did not appeal
and the assessment orders have attained finality.
8. As noticed above, the issue raised in
the present appeal relates to imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of
the Act on account of the said additions.
9. The Tribunal in the impugned order has
reversed the findings recorded by the CIT (Appeals) and affirmed the order of
the Assessing Officer imposing penalty under clause (c) to sub-section (1) of
section 271 of the Act
15. The appellant-assessee has pointed out
with merit that the tax effect in the present cases was minimal as taxable
income as assessed even after the additions/disallowance were Rs.3,55,933/- and
Rs.5,67,040/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively.
According to the assessee, they did not deem it appropriate to file appeals and
get involved in litigation and incur legal costs specially when the
additions/disallowances made were revenue neutral and had been allowed as
expenses reducing the ITA Nos.398 & 399 of 2017 Page 17 of 18 income in the
subsequent assessment years. The appellant-assessee was not to gain any
substantial benefit and advantage by shifting profits or loss from one year to
another.
16. These facets and aspects have been
completely ignored by the Tribunal in their reasoning. These aspects were
relevant and had required due consideration when examining the issue of
bona-fides in making the claim.
18. Given the aforesaid facts, i.e. the
relevant clauses of AS-7, applicable Guidance Notes, the fact that the accounts
were duly audited and the disclosures made in the audit notes, the loss income
as declared, small taxable income as assessed even after the additions were
made and that the expenses as claimed were otherwise eligible and allowed in
the next assessment year, we would accept that the appellant-assessee had shown
that they had acted bona fidely. Thus, the appellant-assessee should not have
been burdened with penalty for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of
the Act.
19. Accordingly, we answer the substantial
question of law in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the
respondent-revenue. However, in the facts of the case, there would be no order
as to costs. All the pending applications stand disposed of.
======================================
Complete Judgement
INCOME
TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - DELHI
GRANITE
GATE PROPERTIES PVT. ... VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI ON
15
MARCH, 2019
BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,
AND
SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 7026/DEL/2017
ITA No. 7027/DEL/2017
[AYs: 2013-14 &
2014-15]
M/s Granite Gate Properties Pvt Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T
C - 23, Greater Kailash, Part -1 Central Circle -6
New Delhi
New Delhi
PAN No: AADCR 6248 M
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv Sapra, FCA
Department By : Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT-DR
Date of Hearing : 12.03.2019
Date of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019
ORDER
PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:-
The above two appeals by the assessee are
preferred against the order dated 23/10/2017 framed u/s 153A r.w.s 144C of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short]
pertaining to A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2014-15. Since the appeals were heard together
and involve common grievance, they are being disposed of by this common order
for the sake of convenience and brevity.
2. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the
assessee stated that the common grievance in both the appeals relates to the
adjustment on account of interest payable/paid by the assessee on Fully and
Compulsorily Convertible Debentures [FCCDs] as issued by it to its Associated
Enterprises [AEs]. The quantum of adjustment is same in both the years
amounting to Rs. 10,70,37,882/-.
3. The ld. counsel for the assessee fairly
conceded that the issues are identical in both the years. On such concession,
we heard the ld. counsel for the assessee on the facts of assessment year
2013-14.
4. During the course of assessment proceedings,
the A.O observed that the assessee has issued FCCD as per the following
schedule:
Financial Year Debentures Name of the AE Coupon
Rate 2008-09 131,45,520 FCCD Twilzon Cyprus debentures of Rs. 100/- Limited,
____________________ 2009-10 112,79,394/- FCCD of Rs. 100 each Twilzon Cyprus
Limited 2011-12 79,68,000/-FCCD of Rs ___________________ 100/-each Twilzon
Cyprus Limited
5. Since an international transaction with the
AE was involved, a reference was made u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. The assessee was
asked to explain its international transaction and whether the same is at Arm's
Length Price [ALP].
6. In its reply, the assessee explained that
interest @ 16%, 14.75% and 17.75% has been paid, which includes SBI PLR + 300
basis points to cover the risk because of funds and administrative cost. The
assessee further stated that since the FCCDs issued to AEs are rupee
denominated, and interest payments are also paid in Indian rupees, therefore,
LIBOR is not applicable in the case of the assessee.
7. The TPO was of the firm belief that the 300
basis points over and above the base rate PLR is excessive and needs to be
disallowed and accordingly made the adjustment as under:
Particulars Amount in !NR
Interest paid at 16% Rs. 21.03,28.320.0.0
Interest arm's length of 12.25% Rs. 16,10,32,620.00
Adjustment Rs. 4,92,95,700.00
Particulars Amount in INR
Interest paid at 14.75% Rs 16,63,71,062.00
Interest arm's length of 11.75% Rs. 13,25,32,879.90
Adjustment Rs. 3.38,38,182.10
Particulars Amount in INR
Interest paid at I 7.75% Rs. 14,14,32,000.00
Interest arm's length of 14.75% Rs.
11,75,28,000.00 Adjustment Rs. 2,39,04,000.00 Total Adjustment 10,70,37,882.10
8. The assessee raised objections before the
DRP, but without any success.
9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee
stated that identical issues were considered by the Tribunal in assessee's own case
in ITA Nos. 7022 to 7024/DEL/2017 for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12. It
is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the Tribunal has decided
the quarrel in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
10. Per contra, the ld. DR could not bring any
distinguishing decision in favour of the revenue.
11. We have heard the rival submissions and have
given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. We have
also perused the orders of the co-ordinate bench relied upon by the ld. counsel
for the assessee. The undisputed fact is that the FCCDs were issued during FY
2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12, which means that no fresh FCCDs were issued
during the year under consideration. The year wise details of interest rate,
interest amount payable and interest rate and amount restricted by the TPO can
be understood from the following chart:
Amount of Differential Amount of Differential
amount Interest rate interest Rate of Interest rate of interest Interest of
interest as per S No Type of FCCD's as per payable on as per TPO to payable at
ITPO.
12. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the
co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 7022/DEL/2017 and others had considered this issue
and held as under:
"27. On merit also, the AO/TPO made the
addition on account of differential rate of interest on FCCDs. The assessee
applied the interest rate on the basis of SBI PLR rate plus 300 basis points
for the reasons that the FCCDs being unsecured and hybrid/quasi equity
instrument as compared to plain vanilla loan instrument.
Therefore, the SBI PLR plus 300 basis points
over it was reasonable and on the arm's length, particularly when the same was
permissible under Foreign Exchange Control Regulations. The AO/TPO, however,
restricted the interest rate to 12.25%. The variance in the rate of interest as
per TPO/AO to be adjusted and added was 3.75% which was within the permissible
range of 5% as permitted by second proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act. It is
also relevant to point out that the percentage of 3% in the aforesaid proviso
has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f.
01.04.2013 and prior to that amendment, this
percentage was at 5%. In the present case, since the difference is less than
5%, therefore, no addition on account of arm's length price could have been
made ITA Nos. 7022 to 7024/Del/2017 Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd. 19 by the
AO/TPO. As such on merit also, no addition could have been made."
13. Similarly, in ITA No. 7025/DEL/2017, the
findings given by the co-ordinate bench read as under;
"14. Therefore, in view of the above
finding of a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the
immediately preceding years, we are of the considered opinion that the issue is
no longer res integra and this bench is required to follow the same in the
absence of any change of circumstances. No change of circumstances is pleaded
before us. We, therefore, while respectfully following the above decision,
reach a conclusion that it is reasonable on facts and also permissible under
law to include 300 points basis while calculating the interest rate. Further,
in view of the fact that the variance does not exceed 5% for the FCCDs issued
during the FYs 2008-09 and 3% for the FCCDs issued subsequently interference by
the Ld. TPO with the value of the international transaction. The addition,
therefore, cannot be sustained and shall be directed to be deleted. We
accordingly direct the learned AO/TPO to delete the same."
14. As no distinguishing decision has been
brought to our notice, respectfully following the findings of the co-ordinate
bench, we direct the Assessing Officer /TPO to delete the impugned adjustments.
15. In the result the appeals of the assessee in
ITA Nos. 7026 & 7027/DEL/2017 are allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 15.03.2019.
No comments:
Post a Comment