Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur v. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt Ltd, 54-55, Rajdeep, Newfatehpura, Udaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 1/2024 Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur. ----Appellant Versus M/s Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt Ltd, 54-55, Rajdeep, NewFatehpura, Udaipur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s): Mr. K.K. BissaFor Respondent(s): Mr. Harshvardhan Singh HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMANOrder 19/02/2024 1.With the consent of the parties, this appeal is finally disposedoff in terms of the order dated 04.09.2023 passed in D.B.Income Tax Appeal no.12/2019 [Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur Vs. M/s Ankit ChiragDevelopers Pvt. Ltd.] and connected matter wherein, it hasbeen held as below: xxx “3.For the purpose of convenience, three substantialquestions of law, which have been framed by theappellant in Income Tax Appeal No.12/2019 arereproduced as follows:“1.Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case the ld. ITAT was justified in law inconfirming the decision of the CIT(A) of deletingthe addition of Rs.6,22,52,685/-made by the AOby applying percentage of completion methodwhich is prescribed under Accounting StandardsAS-7 & AS-9 after rejecting the method ofaccounting adopted by the assessee?questions of law, which have been framed by theappellant in Income Tax Appeal No.12/2019 arereproduced as follows:“1.Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case the ld. ITAT was justified in law inconfirming the decision of the CIT(A) of deletingthe addition of Rs.6,22,52,685/-made by the AOby applying percentage of completion methodwhich is prescribed under Accounting StandardsAS-7 & AS-9 after rejecting the method ofaccounting adopted by the assessee? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case the decision of the ld. ITAT does notsuffer from perversity of law in confirming the decision of the CIT(A)of deleting thedisallowance made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) ofthe Income Tax which is contrary to the decisionof the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofPalam Gas Services Vs CIT reported at 394 ITR300 SC and which was even conceded by theAssessee before ITAT? 3.Whether on the facts of and circumstancesof the case the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in lawin directing the AO to compute income arisingfrom suppression of sales receipt by applyingproject completion method on?” 4.Questions No.1 & 3 herein are answered againstthe appellant in the light of the judgment of this Court inCIT Central Jaipur Vs. Unique Builders andDevelopers and other connected matters [2017(5) TMI 1505 (Rajasthan High Court)]. It has beenbrought to our notice that the SLP preferred against thesaid judgment has been dismissed by the Hon’bleSupreme Court vide order dated 31.07.2023 i.e.Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13072/2018 –Commissioner of Income Tax II Jaipur Vs. M/s.Rama Ajit Builders & Developers. 5.In the light of above, the D.B. Income Tax AppealNo.11/2019 stands dismissed. 6.As far as Question of Law No.2 is concerned, thesame is answered in favour of the appellant-Revenueand against the assessee, in the light of the judgmentpassed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ShreeChoudahry Transport Company Vs.Income TaxOfficer [2020 (8) TMI 23 (Supreme Court)]. 7.The D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.12/2019 standspartly allowed in above terms.” 2.In the result, the present appeal stands party allowed in the above terms. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ 14-jayesh/-