The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji v. Heritage Princes Real Estate Developers

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2017 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI., Versus ... Appellant HERITAGE PRINCES REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS., ... Respondent Ms. Susan Linhares, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. D. E. Robinson, Advocate for the Respondent. -Coram:SHANTANU S. KEMKAR &NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. -Date:8th January 2018 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant as also thelearned counsel for the Respondent on the question of admission. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11 May 2016 (Exhibit-C) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Panaji Goa, in ITA No.23/PAN/2016 ( for short 'Tribunal' )whereby the Tribunal has affirmed the order dated 23 November2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals),Panaji Bench. 3. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 18 March 2015(Exhibit A) disallowed the claim towards the expenses of Rs.80 lakhs. 4. In appeal filed by the assessee the question before theCommissioner was in regard to deletion of disallowance made bythe Assessing Officer of Rs.80 lakhs on account of provisions ofconstruction expenses. The Commissioner (Appeals) examinedthe contentions of both sides and has recorded the finding thatthe Appellant has shown the income from the project "HeritagePrincess" on completion of the project, as the Appellant followsthe mercantile system of accounting and outstanding expense ofRs.80 lakhs relates to the said project. The Commissioner alsofound that though the expenses were not incurred during the yearunder consideration, the liability had crystallized. TheCommissioner after considering the law laid down by theSupreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vsCIT, (2009) 314 ITR 62(SC) holding that any provision made forthe obligation of expenses to be incurred in future against thecurrent years sale is an allowable expenses, on facts found thatthe expenses were incurred by the assessee in the months ofApril to June 2012 which is within three months of the year end.He was also of the opinion that in all likeliness the same relatesto the completed project. In the circumstances, the Commissioner(Appeals) has recorded a finding that the outstanding of Rs.80lakhs related to the completed project is an allowable expenseand addition made on this account deserves to be deleted. 5. On challenge being made by the Revenue to the order passed by the Commissioner ( Appeals ) the Tribunal affirmedthe order of the Commissioner ( Appeals ) by dismissing theappeal of the Revenue. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of theview that no case is made out to interfere into the concurrentfinding of fact recorded by the Commissioner and the Tribunal.Both the authorities have correctly applied the law laid down bythe Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd.(supra). We do not find any substantial question of law involvedin the matter. 7. In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.at* SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.