Itxa/1849/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Central- Ii v. M/S Guruprerna Enterprises

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1849 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Guruprerna Enterprises ..Respondent. Mr. A.R. Malhotra for the appellant. Mr. Sasi Tuilsiyan with P.C. Tripathi for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2013 P.C. :- 1.In this appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 2007-8, following questions of law have been raised for our consideration:- (a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition holding that the assessee has not actually received any cash receipts and the declaration made by the partner of the firm was towards total Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition holding that the assessee has not actually received any cash receipts and the declaration made by the partner of the firm was towards total sale receipts and not towards income for the year ? (b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition holding that the project completion method was applicable on account receipts of Rs.5 crores even though the assessee had not accounted the receipts in the regular books of accounts ?Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition holding that the project completion method was applicable on account receipts of Rs.5 crores even though the assessee had not accounted the receipts in the regular books of accounts ? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the addition of Rs.5 crores itself had failed to follow the norms of accounting standards regarding disclosure of receipts as per the AS-7 and as per section 145 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the addition of Rs.5 crores itself had failed to follow the norms of accounting standards regarding disclosure of receipts as per the AS-7 and as per section 145 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? 2.Counsel for the parties state that the income which is disputed in the present proceedings has been offeredto tax on the basis of the project completion methiod during the assessment year 2009-10 and the same has been accepted by the revenue. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law as the entire exericse would be acadamic. In the above view, the questions (a) to (c) as proposed cannot be entertained. 3.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)