ACIT, JAIPUR vs. UNIQUE BUILDIERS & DEVELOPERS (AJAY), JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 943/JPR/2016Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 April 2017AY 2013-144 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the issue was identical to previously decided cases in favour of the assessee. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's books of accounts and made an addition based on the percentage completion method. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, relying on previous ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO by applying Section 145(3) and rejecting the percentage completion method, considering previous ITAT rulings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 145(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 943/JP/2016

For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by :, Shri P.C. Parwal(CA)

PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM.

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-4,

Jaipur, dated 19.08.2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14. The Revenue has raised the

following grounds of appeal :-

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,87,79,840/- made by the AO by applying of section 145(3) when the assessee is not maintaining quantative and qualitative stock register and the document seized from Shri Navin Bhutani (A-2/51) and from Shri Vibhishek Singh (partner) A-2/19 indicated on money received.

2.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting application of percentage completion method by the AO, when this rejection means acceptance of nil return of the assesee engaged in construction and sale of residential/commercial projects.

2 ITA No. 943/JP/2016 M/s Unique Builders & Developers (Ajay).

3.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in relying upon the decision of ITAT in the case of the assessee for AY 2008-09 & 2009-10, though these orders have been appealed against before Hon’ble High Court by the department on perversity of facts.

4.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified ignoring that the ITAT order on which the CIT(A) has relied upon, stated a wrong fact that the two brothers had separated in 2006 and that the document (A- 2/51) was seized from the laptop of an employee of the separated Ajit Pal Group, ignoring the fact that the two brothers- Shri Ajay Pal Singh and Shri Ajit Pal Singh were actively engaged in business together as partners themselves or though their families in various sister concerns of the assessee firm and the seized document mentioned the projects of the firm like Royal Paradise.

5.

The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.”

2.

Briefly, stated the facts are that, the case of the assessee was picked up for

scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,

1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act) was framed vide order dated 28/3/2016.

While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts

and computed the net profit on the basis of percentage completion method at Rs.

5,87,79,837/-. Against this the Assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A), who

after following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case pertaining to the

assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 in ITA No. 589 & 590/JP/2012 and ITA No.

618 & 619/JP/2012, deleted the addition. Now, the Revenue is in appeal.

3.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered

in favour of the assessee by the decision of Co-ordinate rendered in the assessee’s

own case pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Ld. CIT (DR)

conceded the facts, that the issue is covered against the revenue by the decision of

3 ITA No. 943/JP/2016 M/s Unique Builders & Developers (Ajay).

the Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case pertaining to

the Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13.

4.

We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record

and gone through the order of the authorities below. We find that in ITA No.

531/JP/2014, ground no. 1 was identical as ground no. 1 of this appeal. The

Hon’ble Tribunal in para 5 has obsereved that the identical issue has been decided

by the Tribunal against Revenue in ITA No. 589 & 590/JP/2012.

“ We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Co-ordinate Bench ha considered this issue in assessee’s own case for the appeals mentioned above. The C0-ordinate Bench has passed the speaking order in the appeal mentioned above and allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. By respectfully following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case, we uphold the orders of the ld. CIT(A).”

This fact is not controverted by the ld. DR. Therefore, taking a consistent view, we

do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the ld. CIT(A), same is hereby

affirmed. Therefore, the grounds raised in this appeal are rejected.

5.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA NO. 943/JP/2016 is dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on Monday, the 17th day of April 2017.

Sd/- Sd/- ( HkkxpUn ½ ( dqy Hkkjr) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 17 /04/2017. Pooja/

4 ITA No. 943/JP/2016 M/s Unique Builders & Developers (Ajay).

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-6, Jaipur. The Respondent – M/s Unique Builders & Developers (Ajay), 8th Floor, Mile 2. Stone, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 943/JP/2016)

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 145(3)

All 3,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →