Receipt of retention money by furnishing bank guarantee not chargeable to tax as it accrues only on a successful completion of a contract

ADIT Vs. Ballast Nadam Dredging (ITAT Mumbai) - It was held that retention money withheld by the contractee pending completion of contract work does not accrue to the assessee/contractor in the year in which the amount is retained. We also observe that similar issue was also considered by ITAT in the case of Spirax Marshall Ltd (supra) wherein it was held that receipt of retention money against furnishing bank guarantee cannot partake character of income since it cannot be apportioned until guarantee period was over. The retention money may be received by the assessee; it cannot be apportioned until expiry of warranty period. We observe that the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yatindra and Co. (supra) held that an amount received by assessee against bank guarantee was not accrued to the assessee during the year as no absolute right to receive the amount at that stage vested.

9. Further we observed that the assessee received a part of retention money against bank guarantee in the preceding assessment years, the details of which are given by Assessing Officer at Page 2 and also mentioned herein above in Para 3 at Page 3 of this order. During the course of hearing the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the assessee is following consistently to offer for taxation the part released of retention money against bank guarantee in the assessment year in which right to receive the said release of retention money accrued to the assessee unconditionally. The learned Departmental Representative also did not dispute the above contention of learned Authorized Representative at the time of hearing.
10. In view of above facts and decisions, and particularly that similar issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which has been followed by the learned CIT (A), we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT (A). Hence, we uphold his order and reject the ground of appeal taken by the department