Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Jaipur v. M/S Murano Developers Pvt Ltd

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 241 / 2016 Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Murano Developers Pvt Ltd ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 242 / 2016 Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Murano Developers Pvt Ltd ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 255 / 2016 Pr Commissioner Of Income TAx-1 Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Murano Developers Pvt Ltd ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar with Mr. Prakhul Khurana& Ms. Archana _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment 19/05/2017 In all these appeals, common questions of law and factsare involved, therefore, they are decided by this commonjudgment. 1. By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal of the department. 2.This Court while admitting the matter framed thefollowing questions of law:- In DBITA No. 241/2016 “(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified inrejecting the revenue’s appeal without anyapplication of mind and thereby holding thatthe Assessing Officer has erred in rejectingthe books of accounts of the assessee underSection 145(3) of the Act and reversing thefindings, ignoring the undisputed facts thatthe assessee has failed to maintainquantitative and qualitative stock registersand vouch the expenses incurred by it andthereby deleting the addition of Rs.1,08,40,944/? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified inholding that the ‘Percentage CompletionMethod’ applied by Assessing officer wasunjustified and the ‘Project CompletionMethod’ adopted by the assessee was proper,ignoring that the said method of assessee forcomputation of income was in contraventionof Accounting Standards 7 (ConstructionContracts) and 9 (Revenue Recognition)issued by ICAI?” In DBITA No. 242/2016 (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified inrejecting the revenue’s appeal without any application of mind and thereby holding thatthe Assessing Officer has erred in rejectingthe books of accounts of the assessee underSection 145(3) of the Act and reversing thefindings, ignoring the undisputed facts thatthe assessee has failed to maintainquantitative and qualitative stock registersand vouch the expenses incurred by it andthereby deleting the addition of Rs.1,74,09,574/? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified inholding that the ‘Percentage CompletionMethod’ applied by Assessing officer wasunjustified and the ‘Project CompletionMethod’ adopted by the assessee was proper,ignoring that the said method of assessee forcomputation of income was in contraventionof Accounting Standards 7 (ConstructionContracts) and 9 (Revenue Recognition)issued by ICAI? In DBITA No. 255/2016 (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified inrejecting the revenue’s appeal without anyapplication of mind and thereby holding thatthe Assessing Officer has erred in rejectingthe books of accounts of the assessee underSection 145(3) of the Act and reversing thefindings, ignoring the undisputed facts thatthe assessee has failed to maintainquantitative and qualitative stock registersand vouch the expenses incurred by it andthereby deleting the addition of Rs.1,36,00,361/? In DBITA No. 255/2016 (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified inrejecting the revenue’s appeal without anyapplication of mind and thereby holding thatthe Assessing Officer has erred in rejectingthe books of accounts of the assessee underSection 145(3) of the Act and reversing thefindings, ignoring the undisputed facts thatthe assessee has failed to maintainquantitative and qualitative stock registersand vouch the expenses incurred by it andthereby deleting the addition of Rs.1,36,00,361/? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified inholding that the ‘Percentage CompletionMethod’ applied by Assessing officer wasunjustified and the ‘Project CompletionMethod’ adopted by the assessee was proper,ignoring that the said method of assessee forcomputation of income was in contraventionof Accounting Standards 7 (ConstructionContracts) and 9 (Revenue Recognition)issued by ICAI? 3.Now the issue is squarely covered by the decision takentoday in DBITA No. 23/2013 (CIT Central Jaipur vs. M/sUnique Builders & Developers) decided on 19/5/2017,wherein it has been held as under:- “In view of the observations made in para 12, 12.1onwards and 13, by the Tribunal, we are of theopinion that the Tribunal while considering the casehas gone in detail and after considering the facts onrecord has given a finding. In our considered opinionthe Tribunal being a fact finding authority, it will notbe appropriate for us to re appreciate the evidencewhich has already been appreciated by the Tribunal.Therefore, in view of the decision of this Court andthe Gujarat High Court, referred to by Mr. Jhanwar,the first issue is answered in favour of the assessee.In view of the decision of Supreme Court referredhereinabove, the second issue is also required to beanswered in favour of the assessee. In view of thedecision of Gujarat High Court in the case of S.A.Builders (supra), the issue No.(iii) is answered infavour of the assessee and against the department.” 4.In that view of the matter, the issues are answered infavour of the assessee against the department. 5.All the appeals stand dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. A.Sharma/57, 58 & 62