THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT vs. VIVAN COMMERCIAL LLP, RAJKOT

Page 3 of IT(SS)A No.18/Rjt-2024 Vivan Comercial vs. DCIT 5. It can be seen that Shri Girish Vanjani has categorically stated that he does the work of accounting as per the instructions of Shri Sarvanand Sonwani. Even Shri Sarvanand Sonwani has accepted (in his statements recorded u/s 131 of The Act at the residential premise of Girish Vanjani on 27.08.2021) that Shri Girish Vanjani does the work of accounting as per his instructions. Thus, Shri Girish Vanjani is a key employee and accountant of the R K Group is an admitted and confirmed fact. During the course of search and seizure action at the residential premise of Shri GirishVanjani, Pen Drives and Hard Discs were recovered. Forensic Mirror Imaging (Digital Data Backup) of these devices was taken and the same were Seized. The backup contained key accounting files of the entire group in a very systematic manner. The accounts of 1) Sale of units 2) Cost of lands 3) Expenses incurred on various projects and other miscellaneous transactions made by R K Group members with various counter parties were maintained in accounting software known as MIRACLE. Details of sale of units maintained in various excel sheets were also found and seized from the premise of Shri Girish Vanjani. Multiple miracle files have been found from the digital data that has been imaged and seized during the search operation. Many miracle files found are duplicate copies of each other or either not fully updated. Some Miracle files are more updated than the other. From the plethora of Miracle files that have been found during the post search analysis, 3 files have been isolated which when studied together cover the financial transactions of the group. The details of the three Miracle files as under –

Sr. No. Name of the file 1 Divyaraj & Co. (01-08-2009 to 30-06-2016 2 Divyaraj & Co (01-07-2006 to 31-03-2009) 3 R K World (01-04-2009 to…)

Page 4 of IT(SS)A No.18/Rjt-2024 Vivan Comercial vs. DCIT 6. Apart from the above, various documents in the form of loose-papers, excel sheets etc. have also been recovered and seized during the search operation from the premises of the group members highlighting various kind of financial transactions accounted as well as unaccounted. All the data collected and seized during the search and survey operation has been perused and co-related with the actual transactions made by the group persons and entities. The financial transactions pertaining to sale and purchase of various kinds of properties as seized in the form of Digital Data and in the form of Hard Data were also compared and corroborated with the documentary evidences and responses received from the Sub-registrar office and with the data available in public domains on various government portal like - 1) anyror.gujarat.gov.in 2) garvi.gujarat.gov.in and 3) portals like gujrera.gujarat.gov.in. Comparison of the financial transactions entered in the Miracle accounting files seized during the search was also made with those reported on the regular books of various group members and entities. All this comparison and corroboration exercise has revealed following factual aspects about the seized data – Fact 1 The seized Miracle files recovered during the search operation contain transactions that took place between 1) R K Group members and 2) various other parties (counter parties). They include the accounts of cash as well as bank transactions. It is seen in most of the ledgers from the seized Miracle file that they contain some Bank transactions which are found recorded on the regular books and some Cash transactions which are normally not recorded on the regular books of the respective Group member. This manner of recording the transactions highlights a fact that one part (mostly in Bank) of every deal was being reported on the regular books and the other part (mostly in cash) of the deal was not being reported on the regular books. Thus, some transactions from the Miracle files Page 5 of IT(SS)A No.18/Rjt-2024 Vivan Comercial vs. DCIT were accounted for whereas some were not accounted for in the regular books of the respective group member who owns the transaction.

Fact 2. The data entered in the Miracle software is in coded form - 1) the entries have been backdated by 10 years i.e. 01-04-2019 is entered as 01-04-2009, and 2) the amounts have been divided by 100 i.e. Rs. 2,50,000/- is entered as 2500.00/- Fact 3. The names of the ledgers of different projects, persons have been written in coded form. It is seen that mostly the names of the projects for which any particular transaction is recorded on the seized file were mentioned with the initials. For example – 1) R K Residency is mentioned as RKR, 2) RK Prime is mentioned as RKP, 3) The City Centre is mentioned as TCC, 4) R K Supreme is mentioned as SPM etc.

 Unaccounted receipts of Rs. 39,86,82,150/- against sale of units of the project.  Unaccounted expenses of Rs. 4,57,42,840/- & 30,12,900/- incurred for the project as culled out from the seized Miracle data.

3. The amount recorded in miracle file is in coded form where the actual amount exact amount is calculated by multiplying the recorded entry by 100. For eg. the amount of 10000 is written as 100.00.

13.Conclusion of assessing officer: After considering all the objections of the assessee in its reply to the show cause notice and taking into consideration the facts and material available on records following conclusion has been drawn – Page 9 of IT(SS)A No.18/Rjt-2024 Vivan Comercial vs. DCIT 14.Rejection of books & Estimation of profit, by assessing officer After thorough examination of the response to show cause notice and dismissing various contentions raised by the assessee in its reply, it has been made clear that the seized / impounded data is accurate, reliable and self-explanatory. Further, there is also no doubt that the accounts of the assessee where all the transactions are not reflected cannot be relied upon as they present incomplete and incorrect state of affairs of business of the assessee and requires to be disregarded invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act.Accordingly, provisions of section 145(3) are invoked herewith and the assessment of total income of the assessee is being made after taking into account all relevant material gathered during the search and the assessment proceedings. As per the material gathered during the search and submissions available on records the assessee is found to have indulged in the practice of suppressing both receipts (on account of sale) and payments (on account of purchase) made for the projects undertaken / developed during the year.There is no uniform method that can be employed to compute income when part receipts on account of sale are not included on the books. The method differs from case to case depending upon various factors i.e. type of business, modus operandi of the assessee, sufficiency of data available for estimation etc. In a case where the evidence available on record contains details of corresponding unaccounted payments which are also partly included on the books, such partly recorded payments should also be taken into consideration. Taxing the receipts only has never been the motto of the Income-tax Act.

15.In this regard, the observation of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Williamson Financial Services [2007] 165 Taxman 638 (SC) is reproduced below:

"It is important to bear in mind that u/s 4, the levy is on total income of the assessee computed in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Income Tax Act. What Page 10 of IT(SS)A No.18/Rjt-2024 Vivan Comercial vs. DCIT is chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act is not the gross receipt but the income under the Income Tax Act. The tax is on income but not on gross receipts."

Where suppression of sales receipts is involved, the question is whether the entire sales or only a percentage of profit should be adopted as income. In CIT v. President Industries [2002] 124 Taxman 654 (Gujarat), the Assessing Officer had found evidence of suppression of sales. He adopted the entire receipt (sales) as income but the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that the entire undisclosed receipts (sales) cannot constitute income. The sales only represent the price received by the seller of the units for which the seller has already incurred the cost in order to acquire or process the inventory. Therefore, it is the realization of excess consideration over the cost incurred which should be assessed as profit or income. In other words, profit component embedded in the sales could be treated as income. Recently, in the case of PCIT v. Ms. Jay Kesar Bhavani Developers Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal no. 267 of 2022. the Hon'ble Gui. High Court has held that only profit element embedded in the gross on-money receipts can be taxed. For this, the Hon'ble court has derived reference from its earlier decision delivered in the case of DCIT Vs. Panna Corporation reported in [2012] 74 DTR 89. Relevant part of the decision is as under –

"it has been consistently held by this court and some other courts have been following the principle that even upon detection of on-money receipt or unaccounted cash receipt, what can be brought to tax is the profit embedded in such receipts and not the entire receipts themselves. If that were the legal position, what should be estimated as a reasonable profit out of such receipts, must bear an element of estimation.”

Even in those cases where no details regarding unexplained payments /investments are available on records, it has been held by the Hon'ble Guj. High Court that while dealing with addition on account of unaccounted sales, in absence of any material on record to show that there was any unexplained investment / expense made by the assessee, there could be a presumption of such Page 11 of IT(SS)A No.18/Rjt-2024 Vivan Comercial vs. DCIT expenditure. In such event also it is held that only profit on suppressed sales could be brought to tax [CIT v. Gurbachan Singh J Juneja [2008] 171 Taxman 406 (Gujarat)]

Sr. No. Particulars Amount A On-money receipts 12,42,22,750 B Unaccounted profit estimated (50% of A) 6,21,11,375 Thus, addition of Rs. 6,21,11,375/- being unaccounted profit embedded in the gross unaccounted receipts is made over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration. Consequently, total business income for the year under consideration is enhanced by Rs. 6,21,11,375/- for the year under consideration invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act and after considering all the facts and submissions of the assessee.

Page 14 of IT(SS)A No.18/Rjt-2024 Vivan Comercial vs. DCIT 19. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) The learned CIT(A) dismissed the technical grounds raised by the assessee, challenging reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act. On merit, learned CIT(A), estimated the profit element on the “on money”, at the rate of 8%, 12%, 16% etc, in a different assessment years. Therefore, assessee, as well as, revenue, both are in appeal before us. The main contention of the revenue in these appeals are that the addition made by the assessing officer should be confirmed. Whereas, main contention in the assessee’s appeals is that the profit estimation on “on -money”, is on higher side, therefore, it should be reduced to a reasonable extent, by following the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in various cases such as, in the case of Ms. Jay Kesar Bhavani Developers Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal no. 267 of 2022, wherein 6% addition on “on money, was upheld. In various judgements of jurisdictional ITAT Ahmedabad, (cited by assessee in legal compilation) held the addition on “on money” at the rate of 8% is sufficient to plug the leakage of the revenue. Therefore, the solitary grievance of the assessee in assessee’s appeals are that reasonable estimation may be made in the hands of the assessee. The findings of the learned CIT(A) would be discussed while adjudicating the relevant issue involved in concise and summarised grounds noted above.

21. Summarised and concise ground number No.(i) is reproduced below for ready reference, as follows:

(i) The ld. CIT(A)erred on facts as also in law in retaining addition of Rs.2, 16,41,762/- by estimating profit at the 16% of so called on money receipt. The addition made and retained is bad in law as also on facts therefore the same may kindly be deleted.

Page 15 of IT(SS)A No.18/Rjt-2024 Vivan Comercial vs. DCIT Alternatively, the addition made by estimating rate of profit is very much on higher side and therefore the same may kindly be directed to be reduced and oblige. (This is Ground No. 2 & 3 in assessee’s appeal in for AY 2021- 22, and Ground No.2 & 3 in for AY 2022-23) (This is Ground No. 1 in Revenue's appeal in AY 2021-22 and Ground No.1 in IT(SS)A No. 18/RJT/2024 for AY 2022-23)

“14. In this summarised and concise ground, the plea of the assessee is that estimated profit at the rate of 16% on the so called “on money” is on higher side, considering the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat. However, plea of the revenue is that addition made by the assessing officer at the rate of @ 35% should be sustained. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that judgements of Hon`ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, in respect of addition on “on-money”, should be followed. The Hon`ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the following cases held that profit element embedded in the “on-money” should be added in the hands of the assessee and not the entire “on-money”, and estimated addition on “on money” should be at the rate of 6% or at the rate of 8%, may be made, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The relevant judgements of the Hon`ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat and Hob`ble ITAT Ahmedabad, are reproduced below:

(i). 2020 (4) TMI 844ITAT AHMEDABAD GREENFIELD REALITY P. LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CENT. CIR. 1 (2) AHMEDABAD AND DOIT, CENT. CIR. 1 (2) AHMEDABAD, VERSUS GREENFIELD REALITY P. LTD.

“Estimation of Income on-money received by the assessee on booking of flats and shops in "VesuProject"Income offered by the assessee at 8% of the alleged gross receipts source of payment of cash for purchase of the land-HELD THAT:- On an analysis of the record, it would reveal that during the course of search not only details of on-money received by the assessee on booking of flats and shops in "Vesu Project" was found, but details of certain expenditure, which are not recorded in the books were also found. This included cash payment for purchase of land.CIT(A) has rightly observed that the gross on-money noticed on the seized paper cannot be considered as income of the assessee. There are certain expenditures which were not recorded in the books. Those expenditure must have been made from this on-money.After going through the well- reasoned order of the Id.CIT(A), and in the light of judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictiona' Page 16 of IT(SS)A No.18/Rjt-2024 Vivan Comercial vs. DCIT High Court in the case of Panna Corporation [2014 (11) TMI 797 GUJARAT HIGH COURTI as well as Koshor Mohanlal Telwala [1998 (9) TMI 106-ITAT AHMEDABAD-AI we are of the view that only element of income embedded in the on- money received by the assessee for booking of flats/shops in "Vesu Project" is required to be assessed in its hand in all these years.Element of income involved in this on-money assessee is showing income at 8%, AND CIT(A) is estimating it at 20% HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has also not mentioned any attending circumstances for harbouring a belief that 20% could have been earned from this activity. Thus after taking guidance from the judgment of Kishor Mohanlal Telwala [1998 (9) TMI 106-ITAT AHMEDABAD-Al we deem it proper that the assessee has rightly disclosed the profit element embedded in the gross profit at 8%. Accordingly, we allow the ground of appeal raised by the assessee, and hold that profit which has been directed to be adopted by the Ld.CIT(A) at 20% of the alleged turnover should be taken at 8%.

(ii)Tax appeal No.267 of 2022 dated 07.07.2022 M/S. JAY KESAR BHAVANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.( Guj-HC) “Rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) On money receipt estimation of income addition on account of entire construction receipts as alleged unrecorded receipts - HELD THAT: CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the addition of entire on- money receipts amounting to 4,72,02,368. Therefore, only estimated net profit is required to be taxed. We find that the assessee has shown net profit at 4.55.% for the assessment year under consideration and 4.59% for A.Y. 2010-11. Further, the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT V. Abhishek Corporation [1998 (8) TIMI 110 ITAT AHMEDABAD-C) has upheld the net profit at 1.31% as declared by the assessee in that case. The net profit rate disclosed at 4,55% during the assessment year under consideration by the assessee in books of accounts and considering the facts that the project undertaken by the assessee comes under deduction of section 801B(10) hence, there may not be any intention to disclose the lower rate of profit. Considering these facts, and taking into account net profit in construction business, it would be reasonable to estimate 6% of net profit on total on-money. (iii)The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Hariram Bhambhani INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.313 OF 2013 (BOM)(HC): "In any view of the matter, the CIT(A) and Tribunal have come to the concurrent finding that the purchases have been recorded and only some of the sales are unaccounted. Thus, in the above view, both the authorities held that it is not the entire sales consideration which is to be brought to tax but only the profit attributable on the total unrecorded sales consideration which alone can be subject to income tax. The view taken by the authorities is a reasonable and a possible view. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.” (iv) The ACIT Central Circle - 3, Jaipur Vs Shri Nawal Kishore Soni :

1257, & 1258/JP/2019 [ITAT] [Jaipur]:

Page 17 of IT(SS)A No.18/Rjt-2024 Vivan Comercial vs. DCIT "23.4 It is settled law that not only from the illegal business but also the unaccounted transaction of purchase and sale only profit/ income on sales could be assessed as undisclosed income and could be subjected to tax. Case laws to the point are as under: 1. Dr. T.A. Quereshi (157 taxmann.com 514) (Supreme Court) 2. Piara Singh (124 ITR 40) (Supreme Court) 3. S.C. Kothari (82 ITR 794 (Supreme Court) 23.5 The assessee admitted such profit at Rs. 45,00,000/- and disclosed that on said transactions income in PMGKY, 2016 and paid due tax thereon. The copy of certificate issued by PCIT is placed on record. Thus when that transactions are of unrecorded purchase and sale of gold, which Ld. assessing officer also admits in assessment order, then simply that name & address of purchasers are not provided the entire amount of sale cannot in law be treated as undisclosed income, only profit earned from said transactions which has been admitted by assessee at Rs. 45,00,000/- can only be assessed to tax more so when the assessee has disclosed in PMGKY the said undisclosed income of Rs.45,00,000/- and paid tax in accordance with scheme and received certificate there for from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, hence the same disclosed income cannot be included as income is assessment as per Section 199-l of PMKGY. However Ld. A.O. has allowed credit of amount of disclosed income in PMKGY from total income as so the addition on this account is restricted to Rs.45,00,000/- and balance is deleted. The assessee thus gets relief of Rs.3,02,00,000-45,00,000 = Rs. 2,57,00,000/-." (v) Greenfield Reality P. Ltd IT(SS) A No. 320,321 and 322/Ahd/2018 & 329/Ahd/2018: "16. We have duly considered rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. On an analysis of the record, it would reveal that during the course of search not only details of on-money received by the assessee on booking of flats and shops in "Vesu Project" was found, but details of certain expenditure, which are not recorded in the books were also found. This included cash payment for purchase of land. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly observed that the gross on-money noticed on the seized paper cannot be considered as income of the assessee. There are certain expenditures which were not recorded in the books. Those expenditure must have been made from this on-money. Therefore, after going through the well-reasoned order of the Ld.CIT(A), IT(SS)A No.289 Ahd/2018 (7 Others) Greenfield Reality P. Ld. Vs. DCIT and in the light of judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Panna Corporation (supra) as well as Koshor Mohanlal Telwala (supra), we are of the view that only element of income embedded in the on-money received by the assessee for booking of flats/shops in "Vesu Project" is required to be assessed in its hand in all these years.

17. Next question arose, what is the element of income involved in this on- money. On one hand, the assessee is showing income at 8%, on the other hand, the ld. CIT(A) is estimating it at 20%. It is pertinent to observe that section 144 of the Income Tax Act provides discretion in the assessing officer to pass best judgment when an assessee failed to appear before him, and to submit requisite details. In other words, it provides power in the assessing officer to estimate an income of the assessee. We deem it appropriate to take note the relevant part of this section. It reads as under:..

Page 18 of IT(SS)A No.18/Rjt-2024 Vivan Comercial vs. DCIT "24. We have considered rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. There is no dispute that during the course of search certain material/loose papers were found exhibiting the fact that the assessee has received cash, over and above, the amounts stated in the booking register. This cash was not accounted for in the books. It has been treated as on-money for sale of flats/shops. Simultaneously certain loose papers were found disclosing the fact that the expenditure were incurred in cash and accounted in the books. The Ld.CIT(A) made an analysis of this, and then held that the moment assessee's income is being assessed at 8% of the gross on-money, then the remaining amount 92% could take care of unexplained expenditure. It can be explained by a simple, viz. an assessee has received Rs.100/- in cash for sale of flat. Out of that, element of income embedded in this Rs. 100/-has been determined by us at Rs.8/-. Remaining Rs.92/- must have been incurred by the assessee for developing that flat. Thus, in other words, the expenditure whose details were found being incurred in cash could be construed as coming out of these Rs.92/-. Thus, there cannot be any separate addition of unexplained expenditure. The Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition."

16. We note that the average profit of the assessee as per audited books of accounts is 7%, therefore, profit estimation done by the learned CIT(A) at the rate of 16% on the “on-money” is higher side. Considering the nature of business and voluminous ‘on- money’ and taking into account, the fact that there is expenditure made by the assessee to develop the project out of the “on-money”, therefore, profit margin in this type of business normally is 10% on “on-money”. We proceed to work out the estimation of profit keeping in mind the following facts:

(i)The estimate is not opened up to be framed in an arbitrary manner. (ii) The estimate by rule of thumb is absolutely infirm. (iii)The estimation of rate of profit return must necessarily vary with the nature of the business.

Page 19 of IT(SS)A No.18/Rjt-2024 Vivan Comercial vs. DCIT (iv)There cannot be any uniform yardstick. (v)An assessment to be best of judgement can only be based on the material available on record and past records and considering the totality of the facts. (vi) Only real income and neither notional income nor astronomical income, can be taxed under the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, we note that estimation the profit element on ‘on-money’ at the rate of 10%, should be fair, keeping in mind the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H. M. Esufali Abdulali that the method to be adopted must be which is approximately nearer to the truth.

17. Considering the facts and circumstances, narrated above, we find that the estimation done by the assessing officer, and re-estimated addition, sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) @ 16% is very higher side. Therefore, we are of the view that the estimated addition on “on-money” should be @ 10%, which will take care of inconsistency in the undisclosed income of the assessee. Therefore, the assessing officer, is directed to make the addition in the hands of assessee, at the rate of 10%, on “on-money”. Hence, we allow above appeals of these assessee partly and dismiss all the appeals of the revenue.”

23. Therefore, respectfully following the binding judgement of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot in assessee’s own case (Supra) we partly allow the following appeals of the assessee:

(i) Ground No. 2 & 3 in assessee’s appeal in for AY 2021-22, (ii) Ground No.2 & 3 in for AY 2022-23.

Whereas, following grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed:

24. Summarised and concise ground number No.(ii) is reproduced below for ready reference, as follows:

(ii) The Ld CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to tax the unaccounted profit in the year in which sale deed is executed instead of the year in which the on-money has been received, ignoring that the same is not in accordance with Accounting principles as per ICDS-3 applicable to Real Estate Developers and also not appreciating that the income Page 20 of IT(SS)A No.18/Rjt-2024 Vivan Comercial vs. DCIT on account of undisclosed on-money receipt was required to be assessed in the year of receipt. (This is Ground no. 2 in Revenue's appeal in AY 2021-22 and Ground No.2 IT(SS)A No. 18/RJT/2024 for AY 2022-23)

“21. Learned DR for the revenue argued that Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have directed the assessing officer, to tax the unaccounted profit in the year in which sale deed is executed instead of the year in which the “on-money” has been received. The treatment of revenue recognition adopted by the learned CIT(A) is not in accordance with Accounting principles as per ICDS-3, which is applicable to Real Estate Developers. The learned DR, therefore, stated that the income on account of undisclosed “on- money” receipt was required to be assessed in the year of receipt.

22. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has been following the accrual basis of accounting and percentage of completion method. Therefore, revenue should be recognised in the year in which the transaction got materialised, that is, in assessee`s case, when the document is registered and executed, then only the revenue is recognised, with certainty. Hence, learned CIT(A) has rightly directed the assessing officer to recognise the revenue in the year in which the transaction/sale of flat is registered.

25. On identical facts, it is relevant to refer to the Decision of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of M/s D R. Construction Vs. Income Tax Officer in wherein Hon'ble ITAT has held as under:- "Unaccounted expenditure-receipt of 'on money' in the present case assessee is dealing in several immovable property ie, flats and shops which he has constructed. A single flat is a capital asset for the purchaser but for the assessee all the flats together constitute stock-in- trade. HELD THAT:-it is undisputed position that out of this on money assessee has incurred various expenditure/investment. Therefore, 'on money' as such and as a whole cannot be taxed over and above the income accruing on the basis of entries recorded in the books of account on the basis of decision held in E.D, Sassoon & Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT (1954 (5) TMI 2 SUPREME COURT we hold that advance money received either by way of cheque or by way of cash will partake the character of taxable income when registered sale deed of the flats is executed in subsequent years. As a result, the sum of 10 crores will not taxable in Asst. Year 2008-09. The appeal of assessee is accordingly allowed.”

26. On the similar facts, the learned CIT(A) relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order passed by the Hon'ble Page 22 of IT(SS)A No.18/Rjt-2024 Vivan Comercial vs. DCIT Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation [2018] 94 taxmann.com 292 wherein it was held as under: "Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Method of accounting (Project completion method) - Assessee was engaged in construction business - It was subjected to a survey action which was conducted on business. premises - During course of survey, statement of one partner of firm was recorded in which, he admitted of firm having received a sum of Rs.26.05 crores not disclosed in books of account-While doing so, he further stated that same would be subject to registration of sale deeds When assessment was undertaken, assessee contended that firm was following project completion method of accounting and income would be offered to tax as and when final sale deeds were registered Assessee firm thus offered only a sum of Rs.1 crore during year under consideration Assessing Officer rejected assessee's stand and added entire amount of Rs.26.05 crores as income of assessee during current year Tribunal accepted assessee's contention that since firm was following project completion method for offering income to tax, same would be subjected to tax upon completion of sale, though amount may have been received earlier from buyer Revenue filed instant appeal on ground that in his statement, partner of firm had disclosed entire amount as income of relevant year - Whether in view of fact that while agreeing that sum of Rs. 26.05 crores was undisclosed income of assessee for relevant current year, said partner of firm added a clarification that same would be subject to execution of sale deeds, there was no error in impugned order of Tribunal and, thus, same was to be upheld-Held, yes [Para 5] [in favour of assessee]”

23. Page 23 of IT(SS)A No.18/Rjt-2024 Vivan Comercial vs. DCIT

27. In the combined result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas, appeals filed by the assessee, are partly allowed, to the extent indicated above.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 23/02/2026