Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur v. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd., 54-55 Rajdeep, Newfatehpura, Udaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 12/2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus M/s Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd., 54-55 Rajdeep, NewFatehpura, Udaipur. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 11/2019Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus M/s Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd., 54-55 Rajdeep, NewFatehpura, Udaipur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa. For Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharath Ranka, through V.C.Mr. Harshvardhan Singh. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 14/09/2023 (Oral) By this order, we propose to dispose of both the appeals,which have been preferred by the Revenue relating to the sameassessee and the questions of law involved therein are identical. 2.Learned counsel for the appellants has clarified that both thequestions in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.11/2019 would be thesubject-matter of D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.12/2019 as Question No.1 & 3, which may be decided against the appellant-Revenueand in favour of the assessee, but Question No.2 in D.B. IncomeTax Appeal No.12/2019 is different and the same may be decidedagainst the assessee and in favour of the appellant-Revenue. 3.For the purpose of convenience, three substantial questionsof law, which have been framed by the appellant in Income TaxAppeal No.12/2019 are reproduced as follows: “1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the casethe ld. ITAT was justified in law in confirming the decisionof the CIT(A) of deleting the addition of Rs.6,22,52,685/-made by the AO by applying percentage of completionmethod which is prescribed under Accounting StandardsAS-7 & AS-9 after rejecting the method of accountingadopted by the assessee?the ld. ITAT was justified in law in confirming the decisionof the CIT(A) of deleting the addition of Rs.6,22,52,685/-made by the AO by applying percentage of completionmethod which is prescribed under Accounting StandardsAS-7 & AS-9 after rejecting the method of accountingadopted by the assessee? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the casethe decision of the ld. ITAT does not suffer fromperversity of law in confirming the decision of the CIT(A)of deleting the disallowance made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax which is contrary to the decisionof the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam GasServices Vs CIT reported at 394 ITR 300 SC and whichwas even conceded by the Assessee before ITAT?the decision of the ld. ITAT does not suffer fromperversity of law in confirming the decision of the CIT(A)of deleting the disallowance made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax which is contrary to the decisionof the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam GasServices Vs CIT reported at 394 ITR 300 SC and whichwas even conceded by the Assessee before ITAT? 3.Whether on the facts of and circumstances of thecase the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in law in directing theAO to compute income arising from suppression of salesreceipt by applying project completion method on?”case the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in law in directing theAO to compute income arising from suppression of salesreceipt by applying project completion method on?” 4.Questions No.1 & 3 herein are answered against theappellant in the light of the judgment of this Court in CIT CentralJaipur Vs. Unique Builders and Developers and otherconnected matters [2017 (5) TMI 1505 (Rajasthan HighCourt)]. It has been brought to our notice that the SLP preferredagainst the said judgment has been dismissed by the Hon’bleSupreme Court vide order dated 31.07.2023 i.e. Special Leaveto Appeal (C) No.13072/2018 – Commissioner of IncomeTax 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. 4.Questions No.1 & 3 herein are answered against theappellant in the light of the judgment of this Court in CIT CentralJaipur Vs. Unique Builders and Developers and otherconnected matters [2017 (5) TMI 1505 (Rajasthan HighCourt)]. It has been brought to our notice that the SLP preferredagainst the said judgment has been dismissed by the Hon’bleSupreme Court vide order dated 31.07.2023 i.e. Special Leaveto Appeal (C) No.13072/2018 – Commissioner of IncomeTax 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, the same isanswered in favour of the appellant-Revenue and against theassessee, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in Shree Choudahry Transport Company Vs. Income Tax Officer [2020 (8) TMI 23 (Supreme Court)]. 7.The D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.12/2019 stands partlyallowed in above terms. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ 147-a.asopa/-