9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside the decision in this regard - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 148/JP/2014, ITA No. 149/JP/2014, ITA No. 150/JP/2014 - - - Dated:- 13-5-2016 - Shri Kul Bharat, JM And Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, AM For the Revenue : Ms. Roshanta Meena, JCIT-DR For the Assessee : Shri Varun Bansal, CA ORDER Per Kul Bharat, JM These appeals of the Revenue are directed against separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-Central, Jaipur dated 17-12-2013, 16-12-2013 and 12- 12-2013 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 of above assessees. The Revenue has raised following grounds in respect of each of the assessee s. ITA No. 148/JP/2014 Unique Builders Developers (Rama) 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 45,69,068/- made by the AO by an application of Section 145(3) and estimation of profits when the assessee firm is not maintaining quantitative and qualitative stock register and seized documents like A-2/51 found from the laptop of Shri Navin Bhutani and A-2/19 found from the partner (Shri Vibhishek Pal Singh) reflect on money received. 2. On the facts and in the cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Authority to invoke section 145(3) of the Act and making assessment in the manner provided under section 144 of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the decision in this regard and allow ground nos. 2 3 raised in appeal by the assessee in assessment year 2003-04. The ld. CIT(A) has also decided the above grounds of the appeal raised by the Revenue in favour of the assessee considering the ITAT judgement (supra). In view of the similar facts and circumstances of the assessee's case and respectfully following the decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case (supra), the Ground No. 1 and 2 of the Revenue are dismissed. 3.1 As regards Ground No. 3, we find that this issue has neither arisen from the order of the AO nor from the order of the ld. CIT(A). In this view of the matter, we do not feel to adjudicate the same and hence the same is infructuous. 4.1 As regards the Ground No. 4 of the Revenue, the ld. AR also at the outset of hearing prayed that the issue has also been decided by ITAT in assessee's own case vide order dated 15-03-2013 in ITA No. No.148 and 149/JP/2012 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. 4.2 The ld. DR relied on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by an amount exceeding ₹ 50,000/-, the aggregate fair market value of such property as exceeds such consideration shall be chargeable to tax as income from other sources. Since the assessee herein is the buyer of the land, since the said provision has come into effect w.e.f. first June, 2010, we are of the considered view that even no addition can be made considering that the fair market value as shown by the assessee is less in its books of account in the assessment year under consideration viz assessment year 2008-09 21. In view of the above and in the absence of any material on record, we hold that the addition made by the authorities below, merely on the basis of DVO s report, is not justified and the same is deleted. Hence, we delete the addition of ₹ 76,93,120/- made in the assessment year 2008-09 on the basis of DVO s report. Accordingly Ground No. 3 of the appeal taken by the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 is allowed. The ld. CIT(A) has also decided the above ground of the appeal raised by the Revenue in favour of the assessee considering the ITAT judgement (supra). In view of the similar facts and circumstances of the assessee's case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counting standard has been regularly followed. True and correct profits of the business of the assessee could be deduced from such books of accounts. In this view of the matter the assessing authority could not change the method regularly adopted by the assessee from Project Completion Method to Percentage Completion Method on irrelevant considerations. We are, therefore, satisfied that provisions of section 145(3) are not attracted in this case. The Ld. CIT (A), is found to have erred in upholding the decision of Ld. Assessing Authority to invoke section 145(3) of the Act and making assessment in the manner provided under section 144 of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the decision in this regard and allow ground nos. 2 3 raised in appeal by the assessee in assessment year 2003-04. The ld. CIT(A) has also decided the above grounds of the appeal raised by the Revenue in favour of the assessee considering the ITAT judgement (supra). In view of the similar facts and circumstances of the assessee's case and respectfully following the decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case (supra), the Ground No. 1 and 3 of the Revenue are dismissed. ITA No. 150/JP/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
