Case Law Details
It is undisputed fact that the construction was badly damaged due to floods and its negative effect and the expenditures incurred to maintain bus stand and commercial complex was not recoverable under BOT. As per AS-7 when the cost of contract is likely to be exceed the contract revenue then the loss incurred on the contract should be recognized as revenue expenditure immediately.
1. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Developer and engaged in the business of construction, running and operation of hotels, dealers in all types of Hero Honda two wheelers and gas agency, etc. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings, found that under the proprietary concern M/S. Paraskar Developers which was proprietary concerns of the assessee, net loss of Rs.34,40,284/- was shown.
2. The said proprietary concern was engaged in the business of construction. During the year it undertook a project to construct bus stand and commercial complex at Manora, Dist Washim of Maharashtra on BOT basis with MSRTC.
3. The AO found that the part of the expenses incurred during the year on account of purchases and direct expenses were capitalized to Work-In-Progress and part of expenses was shown as revenue expenditure. There was no sales during the year and resultantly the assessee suffered loss of Rs.34,40,284/- as current year loss which set off against the income from other proprietary concerns.
4. The AO vide order sheet entry, dated 1.3.2013 called upon the assessee to show cause as to why this entire loss should not be added to the WIP as the assessee was following contract completion method which was replied by the assessee vide letter dated 19.3.2013 by submitting that the loss was sustained due to flood and its negative consequences.
5. The assessee submitted that due to flood which happened in the year 2002, the entire construction done by the assessee had collapsed, and the loss shown during the year was primarily on account of expenses on maintenance of bus stand and commercial shops constructed by the assessee which were not to be reimbursed to the assessee under the MOU and accordingly shown the current year loss. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee by rejecting the said claim of Rs.34,40,284/- and added the same to the total WIP.
6. In the appellate proceedings, the FAA allowed the appeal of the assessee after taking into account the contentions and submissions as incorporated in para (V) under the heading Appellant’s submissions in Ground No.1. Aggrieved by the conclusion drawn by the Id.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us.
7. The Id.DR submitted before us that the FAA has allowed the claim of the appellant without appreciating the facts in correct perspective and the claim made by the assessee was not correct for the reasons that the assessee was following project completion method. The Id. DR submitted that during the year the assessee was engaged in the business of BOT Bus stand and commercial complex awarded by the Government of Maharashtra and under the said system of accounting, the recognition of revenue has to be done after completion and therefore expenses claimed by the assessee were not allowable during the year and the AO has rightly added these expenses to the work-in-progress of the assessee. Finally it was prayed that the order of the Id.CIT(A) should reversed and that of AO should be restored on this issue.
8. On the other hand, the Id.AR heavily relied upon the order of the FAA and submitted that the expense were correctly accounted for as revenue expenses by following Accounting Standard-7. The Id. AR specifically drew our attention to para 35 of the said accounting standard which provided for treating the revenue expenses a business loss where the contract costs is likely to be exceeded contract revenue. The Id. AR submitted that due to flood in 2002 the construction of the assessee was badly damaged and expenses incurred were not recoverable under the BOT and therefore whatever expenses had incurred to maintain the bus stand and shops was treated as revenue expenses. The Id. AR finally submitted that in view of the AS-7 and facts of the case the order of the FAA was correct as per law and should be upheld.
9. We have heard the rival parties and perused the relevant materials placed before us . We find that the assessee was engaged in the business of construction and has undertaken a project under BOT for construction of bus stand and commercial complex at Manora awarded by the Government of Maharashtra. It is undisputed fact that the construction was badly damaged due to floods and its negative effect and the expenditures incurred to maintain bus stand and commercial complex was not recoverable under BOT. As per AS-7 when the cost of contract is likely to be exceed the contract revenue then the loss incurred on the contract should be recognized as revenue expenditure immediately. Taking all these facts into account, we are of the considered opinion that the conclusion drawn by the Id.CIT(A) is correct as per law. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Id.CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.
