SHREE SAI CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 23(1), MUMBAI

ITA 361/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0314 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 18-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND KUMAR LD DR ITA NOS M; M SHREE
• Assessee Lawyers: NEHA PARANJPE LD ARS
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 361/M/2013 & 1433/M/2013 SHREE SAI CONSTRUCTIONS ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./I.T.A. NO.361/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) SHREE SAI CONSTRUCTION S 109, BHARAT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE LBS MARG BHANDUP (WEST) MUMBAI 400 078 / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 23(1) ROOM NO. 108, C-10 PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI 400 051 !' ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AALFS-8731-P ( '$ /APPELLANT ) : ( %&'$ / RESPONDENT ) & ./I.T.A. NO.1433/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) ASSISTA NT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 23(1) ROOM NO. 108, C-10 PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI 400 051 / VS. SHREE SAI CONSTRUCTION S 109, BHARAT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE LBS MARG BHANDUP (WEST) MUMBAI 400 078 !' ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AALFS-8731-P ( '$ /APPELLANT ) : ( %&'$ / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : K.GOPAL & NEHA PARANJPE, LD. ARS REVENUE BY : ARVIND KUMAR , LD. DR ITA NOS. 361/M/2013 & 1433/M/2013 SHREE SAI CONSTRUCTIONS ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 2 / DATE OF HEARING : 24/05/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 /06/2017 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2006-07 WHICH ASSAILS THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-33 [CIT(A)], MUMBAI DATED 07/12/2012 AND THE SAME BEIN G INTER-RELATED AND SPRING OUT OF COMMON FACTS, ARE DISPOSED-OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. THE ASSESS EE IS AGGRIEVED BY CONFIRMATION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONS IN AN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 WHEREAS THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY RELIEF PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY LD. CIT(A). 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE, BEING RESIDENT FIRM ENGAGED AS CIVIL CONTRACTOR, WAS SUBJECTED TO EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTIO NAL U/S 263 FOR THE IMPUGNED AY BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX AND CONSEQUENTLY, ASSESSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 VIDE ASSESSING OFFICER [AO] ORDER DATED 16/12/2011 AT RS .714.77 LACS AFTER CERTAIN ADDITIONS OF RS.632.36 LACS. THE ORIGINAL R ETURN WAS FILED ON 31/10/2006 AT RS.43.63 LACS WHICH WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) ON 23/12/2008 AT RS.82.41 LACS AFTER CONSIDERING STATE MENT MADE BY ASSESSEE DURING SURVEY ACTION ON 17/02/2006. THE OR IGINAL ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) AT RS.82.41 CONSISTED OF ESTIMATED INCOME OF RS.60.00 LACS FROM PROJECT CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND D ISALLOWANCE OF ITA NOS. 361/M/2013 & 1433/M/2013 SHREE SAI CONSTRUCTIONS ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 3 RS.23.41 LACS U/S 40(A)(IA). THE ESTIMATION OF RS.6 0.00 LACS WAS ARRIVED AT IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- NO. HEAD AMOUNT (RS.) 1. SALES CONSIDERATION 27,77,09,484/- 2. LESS :COST OF CONSTRUCTION @800/ - P.S.F. ON TOTA L AREA OF 166462 13,31,69,600/ - 3. LESS : LAND COST AS PER STATEMENT 7,50,00,000/- 4. LESS : MISC. & OTHER EXPENSES @300 P.S.F. ON ARE A OF 166462 4,99,38,600/- BALANCE 1,96,01,284/- LESS : PROVISIONS OF VARIOUS EXPENSES (ITEM NOS. 2 TO 13 OF IMPUGNED ADDITIONS) 1,46,35,846/- APPROX. PROFIT MARGIN 50 LACS INCOME OFFERED DURING SURVEY 52 LACS ESTIMATED INCOME TO ACCOUNT FOR V ARIATION IN SALES PRICES 60 LACS THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT ONLY ONE PROJECT NAMELY USHA COMPLEX AT BHANDUP(W) CONSISTING OF TOTAL 350 FLATS AND 10 SHOPS ON AN AREA OF APPROX. 1.62 LACS SQUARE FEET. THE INCOME OF THIS P ROJECT AS A WHOLE WAS DETERMINED IN THE IMPUGNED AY SINCE THE ASSESSE E FOLLOWED PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD AND SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE PROJE CT WAS COMPLETED DURING THE IMPUGNED AY. 2.1 IN THE MEANTIME, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED EXERCI SE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 BY LD. CIT BEFORE TRIBUNAL BUT REMAINED UNSUCCESSFUL AS TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE INVOCATION OF R EVISIONAL JURISDICTION. 2.2 THE BASIS FOR INVOKING THE REVISIONAL JURISDICT ION AS CONTAINED IN S HOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 10/12/2010 WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF PROVISIONS FOR EXPENSES CONSISTING OF 13 ITEMS AGGREGATING TO RS.632.36 LACS AND THE SAME, BEING MERE PROVISIO NS AND ESTIMATED EXPENSES, HAS ERRONEOUSLY BEEN ALLOWED BY LD. AO W ITHOUT VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE SAME ON THE GROUND THA T SINCE THE PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETED, IT HAD TO MAKE PROVISIONS FOR VA RIOUS EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED BY HIM ON THE PROJECT IN FUTURE AS THE INC OME WAS BEING ITA NOS. 361/M/2013 & 1433/M/2013 SHREE SAI CONSTRUCTIONS ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 4 ESTIMATED FOR THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE. HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF AO AND SEND BACK THE SAME FOR RE-ADJUDICATION WITH A D IRECTION TO ALLOW ONLY THOSE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE ASCERTAINED LIABILITIES AND HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN CRYSTALLIZED & QUANTIFIED. 2.3 IN THE REVISIONAL ASSESSMENT, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RE- DETERMINED AT RS.714.77 LACS AFTER DISALLOWANCE OF ALL THE 13 ITEMS AGGREGATING TO RS.632.36 LACS SINCE NO DEDUCTION, I N THE OPINION OF LD. AO, COULD BE ALLOWED TO ASSESSEE FOR MERE PROVISION S ON ESTIMATED BASIS AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE C RYSTALLIZATION OF THE SAME. 2.4 THE STAND OF LD. AO WAS CONTESTED WITH PARTIAL SUCCESS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07/12/2012 WHERE T HE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE LIABILITIES FOR EXPENSES HAD ALR EADY QUANTIFIED, CRYSTALLIZED AND WERE ASCERTAINED LIABILITIES AND T HEREFORE, ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE INCOME WAS BEING ESTIMATED FROM THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE. 2.5 THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING ASSESSEES SUB MISSIONS, CONFIRMED ADDITION OF 12 ITEMS BUT DELETED ADDITION OF RS.46.12 LACS BEING AMOUNT PAYABLE TO MCGM/BMC SINCE THE SAME, AS PER THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITY, HAD CRYSTALLIZED, QUANTIFI ED AND ALREADY FALLEN DUE UPON THE ASSESSEE. 2.6 THE REVENUE, IN ITS APPEAL, IS AGGRIEVED BY THE RELIEF PROVIDED BY LD. CIT(A) WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY CON FIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE AGAINST 12 ITEMS. ITA NOS. 361/M/2013 & 1433/M/2013 SHREE SAI CONSTRUCTIONS ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 5 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE [AR], WHILE DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE DOCUMENTS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK , PRIMARILY ASSAILED ADDITION OF RS.486.00 LACS BEING ADDITIONAL DEMAND FOR LAND. THE PRIME ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR REVOLVED AROUND THE FACT THE ASSESSEE , IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, WAS NEVER ALLOWED DEDUCTION THEREOF AND HENCE, COULD NOT BE SADDLED WITH THE ADDITION OF THE SAME. THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED ON AN ESTIMATED BASIS FROM THE PROJE CT AS A WHOLE AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPENSES INCURRED / TO BE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEDUCTION OF ADDITIONAL COST OF LAND WAS NEVER ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO COMPUTATI ON OF INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, CORRESPO NDENCES WITH THE LAND OWNER, LITIGATION PAPERS, LEDGER EXTRACTS ETC. FOR THIS CONTENTION. 3.1 PER CONTRA , LD. DR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE COST OF PROJECT ESTIMATED BY THE LD. AO DURING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAD ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR ALL THE EXPENDITURE AND WHATEVER COST WAS INCURRED / TO BE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALREADY IN-BUILT INTO THE ESTIMATED COST AND THEREFORE, DEDUCTION THEREOF WAS ALREADY ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, THE ADDITIONAL COST OF LAND IS UNDER DISPUTE AND TH E SAME IS STILL OUTSTANDING, THE LIABILITY IN RESPECT THEREOF HAS N OT CRYSTALLIZED AND THEREFORE, RIGHTLY BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, BEING IN THE NATURE OF MERE PROVISIONS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. SO FAR AS THE REVENUES APPEAL QUA RELIEF PROVIDED BY LD. CIT(A) IS CONCERNED, WE FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN TH E SAME AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY EXAMINED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, PARTICULARLY THE DEMAND RAISED BY MCGM/BMC AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS A ITA NOS. 361/M/2013 & 1433/M/2013 SHREE SAI CONSTRUCTIONS ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 6 CLEAR FINDING THAT THE WORK HAD ALREADY BEEN COMPLE TED BY THE AUTHORITY AND THE LIABILITY TO PAY THE SAME HAD ALREADY FASTE NED ON THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE LIABILITY WAS ASCERTAINED, QUANT IFIED & CRYSTALLIZED. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME WHICH RESULT INTO DISMISSAL OF REVENUES APPEAL. MOREOVER, THE I NCOME FROM THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE IS BEING ESTIMATED DURING THE IM PUGNED AY AND EXPENSES, WHICH HAVE QUANTIFIED / CRYSTALLIZED ARE ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 4.1 PROCEEDING FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT DURING REV ISIONAL ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFERED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF FO LLOWING 13 ITEMS:- THE RELIEF AGAINST ITEM NO. 13 TITLED AS MCGM CLAIM FOR NALLA WORK WAS ALREADY GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY LD CIT(A) WHICH HAS BEEN AGITATED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US AND SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISSED REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST THIS RELIEF IN PRECEDING P ARAGRAPH, WE ARE LEFT WITH ADDITION OF ITEM NOS. 1 TO 12. 4.2 SO FAR AS ITEM NOS. 2 TO 12 ARE CONCERNED, WE F IND THAT LD. CIT(A) EXAMINED THE SAME IN DETAIL AND AFTER DUE APPLICATI ON OF MIND FOUND THE NO. NATURE AMOUNT (RS.) 1. ADDITIONAL DEMAND OF LAND BY KMCL 4,86,00,000/- 2. NA TAX BILL DATED 09/11/2005 9,38,576/- 3. PROPERTY TAX OF OFFICER 1,43,369/- 4. ASSESSMENT TAX OF WINGS A TO F 19,03,015/- 5. ASSESSMENT TAX OF WINGS G TO L 43,53,731/- 6. LIFT TO BE INSTALLED IN WING A 3,25,000/- 7. METER TO BE INSTALLED 6,10,500/- 8. GARDENING WORK TO BE DONE 3,00,000/- 9. CHINA CHIPS TO BE FIXED IN WINGS A TO D 3,25,000 /- 10. CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL 8,75,000/- 11. MARBLE TO BE FIXED ON STILT 1,50,000/- 12. MAIN GATE WORK 1,00,000/- 13. MCGM CLAIM FOR NALLA WORK 46,12,155/- TOTAL 6,32,36,346/ - ITA NOS. 361/M/2013 & 1433/M/2013 SHREE SAI CONSTRUCTIONS ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 7 SAME EITHER TO BE UNASCERTAINED LIABILITIES/ MERE P ROVISIONS / UNPAID DESPITE LAPSE OF CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME OR NOT THE ASSESSEES LIABILITIES. THEREFORE, APPLYING SIMILAR REASONING AS GIVEN BY US IN REVENUES APPEAL, THE EXPENSES BEING MERE PROVISION S / UNASCERTAINED / NOT CRYSTALLIZED DURING IMPUGNED AY COULD NOT BE AL LOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR IN QUESTION. HOWEVER, AS A LOG ICAL CONSEQUENCE, THE SAME SHALL BE ALLOWABLE IN AY IN WHICH THE SAME BECOMES CRYSTALLIZED AND QUANTIFIED AND PAID BY THE ASSESSE E. THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL TO THAT EXTENT ARE DISMISSED. 4.3 THE ASSESSEES PRIME GRIEVANCE, AS CONTENDED BY LD. AR, IS RELATED WITH ITEM NO. 1 TITLED AS ADDITIONAL DEMAND OF LAND BY KMCL FOR RS.486.00 LACS. THE PRIME CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS THAT SINCE DEDUCTION THEREOF WAS NOT GRANTED IN THE ORIGINAL A SSESSMENT, ADDITION FOR THE SAME COULD NOT BE MADE WHEREAS THE LD. DR H AS CONTENDED THAT ALL COST, OF WHATEVER NATURE, HAD ALREADY BEEN BUIL T INTO THE ESTIMATION OF PROFITS AND THEREFORE, SINCE THE SAME HAS NOT CRYST ALLIZED, THE SAME IS RIGHTLY ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.4 THE MATERIAL FACTS AS EMANATING FROM THE RECORD S ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY FOR A RE SIDENTIAL PROJECT NAMELY USHA PROJECT ON LAND BELONGING TO KHANDELWAL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LTD. (KMCL) . AS PER AGREEMENT DATED 19/03/1999 WITH KMCL , THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO UTILIZE SANCTIONED A VAILABLE FSI OF APPROX. 1.62 LAC PER SQUARE FEET AND AS PER THE AGR EEMENT, A TOTAL SUM OF RS.746.82 CRORES WAS PAYABLE TO KMCL CALCULATED @461/- PER SQ. FT. I.E. 1.62 LACS SQ FT * RS. 461/- PER SQ. FT. A PERU SAL OF ASSESSEES BALANCE SHEET AS IN 31/03/2000 PLACED ON PAGE NO. 332 OF THE PAPER ITA NOS. 361/M/2013 & 1433/M/2013 SHREE SAI CONSTRUCTIONS ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 8 BOOK REVEALS THAT THE COST OF LAND RS.746.82 LACS HAS B EEN REFLECTED AS CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES. OUT OF THE SAID SUM, THE ASS ESSEE HAS PAID A SUM OF RS.462.73 LACS TO KMCL OVER A PERIOD OF SEVEN YEARS LEAVING A BALANCE OF RS.284.09 LACS WHICH HAS REMAINED UNPAID BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN THROUGHOUT IMPUGNED AY, STATED TO BE DUE TO IN SUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS. A PERUSAL OF LEDGER EXTRACT OF KMCL IN ASSESSEES BOOK FOR THE PERIOD 01/04/2001 TO 31/03/2006 PLACED AT PAGE NO. 292 OF THE PAPER BOOK REVEALS THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.271.19 LACS WAS DUE TO KMCL AS ON 31/03/2006. THE SAME AMOUNT HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN T HE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE FOR IMPUGNED AY AS CREDITORS FOR LAND UNDER THE HEAD CURRENT LIABILITIES . THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SEPARATE PROVISIONS FOR EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.632.36 LACS WHICH COMPRISE S OF 13 ITEMS AS ADDED BY LD. AO ON THE PREMISES THAT THE LIABILITIE S IN RESPECT THEREOF DID NOT CRYSTALLIZED / QUANTIFIED. THE PROVISIONS OF RS .632.36 LACS INCLUDES ADDITIONAL COST OF LAND RS.486.00 LACS WHICH MAKES IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE ADDITIONAL COST OF LAND DO NOT INCLUDE ANY PART OF THE ORIGINAL COST OF LAND ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM KMCL . THE PROVISIONS OF SAID AMOUNT OF RS.486.00 LACS HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT AS PER LEGAL NOTICE OF ADVOCATE OF KMCL DATED 02/12/2009 WHEREIN AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RS.300/- PER SQ FT. ON AN AREA OF 1.62 LACS SQ. FT. AGGREGATING TO RS.486.00 LACS HAS BEEN CLAIMED FROM ASSESSEE ON AC COUNT OF DELAY IN PAYMENT AND APPRECIATION IN THE COST OF THE LAND. T HEREFORE, A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE NO PART OF ORIGIN AL COST OF LAND WAS REFLECTED UNDER ADDITIONAL COST OF LAND. 4.5 PROCEEDING FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ARRIVED AT AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS RA THER THE SAME HAS ITA NOS. 361/M/2013 & 1433/M/2013 SHREE SAI CONSTRUCTIONS ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 9 BEEN ARRIVED ON AN ESTIMATED BASIS AS EVIDENT FROM COMPUTATION OF INCOME REPRODUCED BY US IN PARAGRAPH 2 ABOVE. THE E STIMATION HAS BEEN MADE BY PICKING SALES FIGURES OF RS.27.77 CROR ES WHICH HAVE BEEN REFLECTED AS RS.30.39 CRORES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RECONCILIATION STATEMENT PLACED AT PAGE NO. 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK . THEREAFTER THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION & MISC. EXPEN SES HAS BEEN ESTIMATED TO BE RS.800/- PER SQ. FT. & RS. 300 /- PER SQ. FT RESPECTIVELY. AFTER DEDUCTING PROVISIONS FOR EXPENS ES, THE PROFIT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED AT RS. 50 LACS WHICH HAS BEEN FURTHER ENH ANCED TO RS.60 LACS TO ACCOUNT FOR VARIATION IN SALES PRICES. 4.6 IN THE REVISIONAL ASSESSMENT, WE FIND THAT THE STARTING POINT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME IS INCOME ASSESSED DURING ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WHICH WAS NOT THE CORRECT APPROACH SINCE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS ALREADY SET ASIDE BY LD. CIT. NEVERT HELESS, WE FIND NO REASON TO DISTURB THE SAME SINCE THE ONLY DISPUTE I S WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF PROVISIONS. 4.7 IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESS MENT, THE PROFIT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED AFTER PROVIDING SEPARATE DEDUCTION T OWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION BEING RS.800/- PER SQ. FT. AND COST OF LAND BEING RS.750.00 LACS. THEREFORE, ALL THESE FACTORS LEAD U S TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROVIDED DEDUCTION OF RS.486.00 LA CS TOWARDS ADDITIONAL COST OF LAND IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE, THE SAME COULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE IN THE REVISIONAL ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, THIS CONCLUSION SHALL BE SUBJE CT TO A RIDER THAT SINCE THE PROFIT FROM THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE HAS BE EN ESTIMATED IN THE IMPUGNED AY AND ALL COSTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN INBUILT INTO THE PROFIT ITA NOS. 361/M/2013 & 1433/M/2013 SHREE SAI CONSTRUCTIONS ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 10 ESTIMATION, NO FURTHER DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF EITH ER ADDITIONAL COST OF LAND OR ANY OTHER EXPENSES, WHATSOEVER, SHALL BE AVAILA BLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, WE D ELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.486.00 LACS, SUBJECT TO THE RIDER AS STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW ASSESSEES APPEAL TO THAT EXTENT. 5. IN NUTSHELL, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISS ED WHEREAS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH JUNE, 2017. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 14. 06.2017 SR.PS:- THIRUMALESH ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '$ / THE APPELLANT 2. %&'$ / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. %. , . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /0 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI