Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 943/JP/2016
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.
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).
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.
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.
The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.”
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.
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.
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.
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