DCIT- CC-02, NEW DELHI vs. GRIHAPRAVESH BUILDTECK PVT. LTD., NOIDA

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

The Revenue’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds:

The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,30,12,445/- on account of short revenue recognised from the ongoing project by considering the predecessors' orders in the case of the same assessee for the same issue for previous A.Y.'s 2012-13 & 2013-14 Grihapravesh Buildteck Pvt. Ltd. 2 without appreciating the fact that there is no applicability of the predecessors' order as while passing the assessment order, the points raised by the Ld. A0 in the present case are different from that raised in previous ones and hence the matter should be sent back to CIT(A).

The CIT(A) has erred in completely relying on a report by M/s Andley Associates Pvt. Ltd. which is under question by Ld. AO while passing the assessment order. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in adjudicating the issue related to short revenue recognized from the ongoing project without adjudicating the issue on merits.

The CIT(A) has erred in adjudicating the issue related to short revenue recognized from the ongoing project without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not claimed the enhanced interest cost contributing to contingency cost of land during the previous A.Y. 2013- 14. 5. The CIT(A) has erred in adjudicating the issue related to short revenue recognized from the ongoing project without appreciating the fact that the assessee has claimed cost of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- for compounding for increased size despite no submissions have been made by the assessee regarding the same during assessment proceedings.

The CIT(A) has erred in adjudicating the issue related to short revenue recognized from the ongoing project without appreciating the fact that the assessee has claimed cost of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- on account of green building certificate and green building compliance though the fee structure as per the website of India Green Building Council (1GBC) Green Homes indicates fee of Rs. 6,35,000/- only.”

It is at this stage that the learned counsel representing assessee has filed it’s detailed paper book running into 53 pages. He next submits that the assessee’s taxable income for the impugned assessment year already stands recomputed by the learned Assessing Officer on 25.01.2024 in furtherance to the Interim Board for Settlement VII, Chennai’s Grihapravesh Buildteck Pvt. Ltd. 3 directions/order dated 11.12.2023 relevant to the impugned assessment year.

Faced with this situation, learned departmental representative submits that the assessee has filed all these documents of the foregoing Interim Board proceedings and consequential computation for the first time in tribunal. We find prima facie merit in the Revenue’s technical objections to restore it’s instant appeal back to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate factual verification in very terms. Order accordingly.

This Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 03/07/2025. (S. Rifaur Rahman) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member