M/S Deepak Builders Pvt.ltd v. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. Income Tax Appeal No. 880 of 2000 M/s Deepak Builders Pvt.Ltd. ..Appellant vs. 1. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax and others ..Respondents Mr.B.V.Jhaveri for appellant. Mr.J.S.Saluja for respondent. CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 12th August, 2008 CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. While admitting the present appeal following substantial question of law was framed. "Whether there was any material in support of the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the income for A.Y,.1990-91 cannot be properly deducted by following the Completed Contract Method of accounting which is consistently followed by the appellant for the last more than ten years and accepted by the Revenue and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition of Rs.4,15,585/- to the income of the -2- appellant on account of estimated profit under Percentage of Completion Method adopted by the Assessing Officer by invoking proviso to section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 3. We have perused the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 4th February, 2000. Mr.Saluja, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent admitted before us that for the Assessment Year 1989-90 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that the method of completed contract method of accounting was accepted and adopted by the appellant. Similarly even for the Assessment year 1985-86 the CIT(A) has taken a view that the above method of accounting adopted by the appellant was acceptable and accepted the same. There is also no dispute that the appellant has been adopting the same method of accounting namely completed contract method of accounting from 1978-79 till date and for all these years the respondent/revenue has been accepting the same excepting for the Assessment Year 1990-91 in view of the Tribunal’s order. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is clear that CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition of Rs.4,15,585/- as the aforesaid method of accounting has been consistently accepted by the revenue. In the circumstances the above question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the -3- revenue. The appeal stands disposed of. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)