The ACIT, Circle -9, Ahmedabad V. M/s Navnirman Infrastructure, Ahmedabad

ITA 1078/AHD/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9168 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2009
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2005
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K KANDHELVAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B BEFORE SHRI T.K.SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 1.09.09 DRAFTED ON:1.09.09 ITA NO.1078/AHD/2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE.9, AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. NAVNIRMAN INFRASTRUCTURE, C-5, NIRMAN HOUSE, NEAR S.P. COLONY RAILWAY CROSSING, USMANPURA, AHMEDABAD. PAN/GIR NO. : AACFN 8023 A (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : A.K.KANDHELVAL SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY: NONE O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THIS IS AN APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)XV, AHMEDABAD, DATED 19.01.2005. 2. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEA L. 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2 LACS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT BEING WORK IN PROGR ESS. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,64,253/- AND 5,14,535/- BEING WORK IN PROGRESS ON DIFFERENT SITES. ITA NO. ITA NO.1078/AHD/2005 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE.9, AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. NAVNIRMAN INFRASTRUCTURE ASST . YEAR 2001-02 - 2 - 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE U PHELD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LE ARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) MAY BE SET ASID E AND THAT IF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BE RE STORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 3. SINCE THE ISSUE AND FACTS INVOLVED IN THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE COMMON, THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FIRM IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR AND DURING THE YEAR CARRIED OUT CONTRACT WORK FOR VARIOUS GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION. IN RESPECT OF CONTRACT WOR K DONE FOR STRENGTHENING ROAD AROUND DISTRICT SHOPPING CENTRE, SECTOR 21, GANDHINAGAR, THE ASSESSEE SHOWED CONTRACT RECEIPT I N RESPECT OF WORK DONE UPTO R.A. BILL NO.2. THE MEASUREMENT DATE MENT IONED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IN RESPECT OF THE SAID RUNNING B ILL NO.2 WAS 30.08.2000. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CONTRACT RECEIPT S OF RS.12,58,564/- IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ON THE BASIS OF R.A. BILL NO.3., THE MEASUREMENT DATE AS PER THIS BILL WAS 6. 06.2001. FROM THIS, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE CONTRAC T WORK OF RS.12,58,564/- WAS CARRIED OUT DURING THE PERIOD FR OM 30.08.2000 TO 6.06.2001. THEREFORE, IN HIS OPINION, ASSESSEE SHOU LD HAVE SHOWN WORK; IN PROGRESS, IN RESPECT OF THE SAID CONTRACT FOR TH E WORK COMPLETED UPTO 31.03.2001. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SHOW ANY WO RK IN PROGRESS HE ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES SEE FURNISHED COPIES ITA NO. ITA NO.1078/AHD/2005 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE.9, AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. NAVNIRMAN INFRASTRUCTURE ASST . YEAR 2001-02 - 3 - OF LETTERS WRITTEN BY IT TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DATED 16.12.2000, 13.01.2001 AND 14.03.2001 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE WO RK COULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT AFTER 30.08.2000 DUE TO VARIOUS REASONS AND THERE WAS NO PROGRESS IN WORK UPTO 31.03.2001. THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND EST IMATED WORK IN PROGRESS AT RS.2,00,000 AS ON 31.03.2001 AND MADE A DDITION TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 5. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARN ED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT CONSIDERED PROPERLY THE LETTERS PRODUCED BE FORE HIM AND THE FACT THAT ROAD CONTRACT WORK WAS NORMALLY NOT CARRI ED OUT DURING MONSOON SEASON. THE ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF LETTER S DATED 16.12.2000, 13.01.2001 AND 14.03.2001 ADDRESSED TO THE EXECUTI VE ENGINEER AND SUBMITTED THAT IT WILL BE OBSERVED FROM THE LETTERS THAT THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS THE WORK COULD N OT BE STARTED FOR VARIOUS REASONS STATED IN THE LETTERS. IT WAS THERE FORE, PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.2 LACS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND SHOULD BE DELETED. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE CORRESPONDENCES AND LETTERS WRITTEN TO DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE WOR K HAS NOT BEEN STARTED FOR STRENGTHENING OF ROAD AT SECTOR 21, GAN DHINAGAR AS ON 31.03.2001 AND THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY WORK IN PROGRESS FOR THE ITA NO. ITA NO.1078/AHD/2005 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE.9, AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. NAVNIRMAN INFRASTRUCTURE ASST . YEAR 2001-02 - 4 - SAID WORK. HENCE, HE CONCLUDED THAT THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.2 LACS WAS NOT PROPER AND D ELETED THE SAME. 7. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT THROUGH RPAD WITH ACK NOWLEDGEMENT DUE ON 15.07.2009 TO THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE AND TH E SAME WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 17.07.2009 AS EVIDENCED BY THE A CKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD OF THE POST OFFICE PLACED ON RECORD. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AN D NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. THEREFORE, THE A PPEAL WAS HEARD EX- PARTE QUA THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE AND DISPOSED OF T AKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSION OF LEARNED DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IN RESPECT OF THE CONTRACT WORK FOR IMPROVEMEN T OF ROAD AT CH-2, JUNCTION, GANDHINAGAR, THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN CONT RACT RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF WORK CARRIED OUT UPTO R.A.BILL NO.1 AND THE MEASUREMENT DATE AS MENTIONED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IN RESP ECT OF R.A. BILL NO.1 WAS 30.08.2000. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN A.Y. 2002-03 THE A PPELLANT HAS SHOWN CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.4,47,423/- ON THE BASIS OF WORK CARRIED OUT AS PER R.A.BILL NO.2 AND THE MEASUREMENT DATE AS PER THIS BILL WAS 13.02.2001. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ENTIRE WORK OF RS.4,47,423/- HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT BETWEEN 30.08 .2000 TO 13.02.2001. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN AN Y CONTRACT RECEIPT ITA NO. ITA NO.1078/AHD/2005 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE.9, AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. NAVNIRMAN INFRASTRUCTURE ASST . YEAR 2001-02 - 5 - FOR THIS WORK CARRIED OUT BY IT. THEREFORE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO ADD CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS.4,47,423/- IN THE TOT AL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE APPEL LANT IN REPLY TO WHICH THE APPELLANT REPLIED THAT THE CONTRACT WORK AS PER R.A.BILL NO.3 WAS NOT COMPLETED ON 13.02.2001 AS REFLECTED IN THE R.A. BILL BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY COMPLETED ON 20.06.2001. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED A LETTER FROM THE DY. EXECU TIVE ENGINEER, GANDHINAGAR DATED 12.03.2004 STATING THAT THE SAID WORK WAS COMPLETED BETWEEN 12.02.2001 AND 20.06.2001. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE WORK IN PROGRESS ON PRO-RATA BASIS UPTO 31.03.2 001 COMES TO RS.1,64,257/- AND THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS .1,64,257/- AS WORK IN PROGRESS. 10. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXECU TIVE ENGINEERS LETTER DATED 12.03.2004 CLEARLY STATED THAT WORK CO VERED BY R.A.BILL NO.2 WAS CARRIED OUT BETWEEN 12.02.2001 TO 20.06.2001 AN D WORK AS PER ITEM NO.15 AND 16 AMOUNTING TO RS.3,48,064/- WAS CARRIED OUT DURING THE PERIOD FROM 3 RD JUNE TO 5 TH JUNE 2001. THEREFORE, THE WORK RELATING TO ITEM NO.15 AND 16 AMOUNTING TO RS.3,48,064/- HAD NO T BEEN STARTED AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2001. THUS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS MADE A MISTAKE IN COMPUTING WORK IN PROGRESS. T HE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IGNORED VARIOUS LETTERS DATED 16.12.2000, 14.03.2001 AND 20 .04.2001 ADDRESSED TO THE DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GANDHINAGAR STATING THE REASONS FOR NOT CARRYING OUT WORK. ITA NO. ITA NO.1078/AHD/2005 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE.9, AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. NAVNIRMAN INFRASTRUCTURE ASST . YEAR 2001-02 - 6 - 11. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERV ED THAT AS PER LETTER DATED 12.03.2004 OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GANDHIN AGAR THE WORTH OF RS.3,48,064/- I.E. AS PER ITEM NO.15 AND 16 OF THE CONTRACT NO.B-1/10 AND 2 ND R.A.BILL WAS CARRIED OUT DURING THE PERIOD FROM 3. 06.2001 TO 5.06.2001 I.E. AFTER 31.03.2001. THEREFORE, OUT OF CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS.4,47,423/- WORK OF RS.348064/- HAD BEEN STARTED AFTER 31.03.2001 AND COMPLETED AFTER 31.03.2001 AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY WORK IN PROGRESS FOR THE SAID WORK AND THE BALANCE WORK OF RS.1 LAC HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT DURING THE PERIOD FROM 12.02.2001 TO 20 .06.2001 AND THE WORK IN PROGRESS SHOULD BE PROPORTIONATELY WORKED O UT AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OVER THE PERI OD ON PRO-RATA BASIS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE DIRECTED THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER, THE WORK OUT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WORK OF RS.1 LAC ON PRO-RATA BASIS AND REDUCED ADDITION ACCORDINGLY. 12. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.5,14,535/- AS WORK IN PROGRESS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD AT NIKOL. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN WORK IN PR OGRESS OF RS.15,94,000/- IN RESPECT OF THE SAID CONTRACT WORK . ON VERIFICATION OF R.A. BILL NO.5, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE TOTAL VALUE OF WORK DONE AS PER THIS BILL WAS OF RS.21,08,535/-. THEREF ORE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER QUESTIONED THE APPELLANT ABOUT TH E DIFFERENT OF RS.5,14,535/- AND PROPOSED TO ADD THE SAME AS WORK IN PROGRESS. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT THE MEASUREMENT DATE AS PER R.A.BILL NO.4 WAS 19.03.2001 AND IT WAS 19.06.2001 AS PER ITA NO. ITA NO.1078/AHD/2005 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE.9, AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. NAVNIRMAN INFRASTRUCTURE ASST . YEAR 2001-02 - 7 - R.A.BILL NO.5. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT CONTENDED T HAT WORK IN PROGRESS OF RS.15,94,00/- HAS BEEN CORRECTLY SHOWN FOR THE W ORK COMPLETED UPTO 19.03.2001. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFICATION O F THE RUNNING ACCOUNT BILLS NO.4 AND 5 OBSERVED THAT NO SUCH MEASUREMENT DATE OF 19.03.2001 AND 19.06.2001 HAVE BEEN REFLECTED AND THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE WORK IN PROGRESS OF RS.15,94,000/- WAS IN RESPECT OF WORK COMPLETED UPT O 19.03.2001. THEREFORE, HE ADDED RS.5,14,535/- AS WORK IN PROGRE SS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 13. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER THE FACT THAT AS PER MEASUREMENT BOOK NO.466, THE MEASUREMENT DATE OF R.A.BILL NO.4 WAS 19.03.2001 AN D THAT OF R.A.BILL NO.5 WAS 19.06.2001. THE REMAINING WORK OF RS.5,14, 535/- WAS CARRIED OUT DURING THE PERIOD FROM 19.03.2001 TO 19.06.2001 AND NOT BEFORE 31.03.2001. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT REQUESTED THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER T O CROSS VERIFY THE SAID FACTS WITH AUDA AUTHORITY AS AUDA DENIED TO GI VE WRITTEN REPLY TO THE APPELLANT. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURNIS HED A COPY OF COVERING LETTER FOR R.A. BILL NO.4 AND BILL NO.5 AS PER ANNEXURE 3A AND 3B TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THEREFORE, THE AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.5,19,535/- MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DELETED. 14. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS ) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVE D THAT AS PER ITA NO. ITA NO.1078/AHD/2005 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE.9, AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. NAVNIRMAN INFRASTRUCTURE ASST . YEAR 2001-02 - 8 - ANNEXURE-3A AND 3B SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE W ORK HAS BEEN COMPLETED BETWEEN 19.03.2001 AND 21.06.2001. AS PER R.A.BILL DATED 21.06.2001 THE WORK HAS BEEN STARTED FOR RS.514535/ - FROM 19.03.2001 AND COMPLETED BY 20.06.2001. HENCE, THE WORK IN PRO GRESS OF THE SAID WORK SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON PRO-RATA BASIS FOR 12 D AYS ON THE WORK OF RS.5,14,535/- AND HENCE DIRECTED THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER TO RE- RECALCULATE THE WORK IN PROGRESS ACCORDINGLY. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE AND PERUSE THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE IN STANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR AND THE DISPUTE IS REGARDI NG VALUATION OF CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRESS IN RESPECT OF THREE DIFFERENT CONT RACTS. IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST CONTRACT, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSER VED THAT THE FIRST R.A. BILL WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS ON THE BA SIS OF MEASUREMENT DONE ON 30.08.2000. THE SECOND R.A. BILL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE MEASUREMENT DONE ON 21.06.2001. NO WOR K-IN-PROGRESS WAS SHOWN ON 31.03.2001 BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS ON 31.03.200 1 AT RS.2 LACS IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE CONTRACT AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(AP PEALS) OBSERVING THAT THERE WAS NO WORK DONE BEFORE THE PERIOD 30.08 .2000 TO 31.02.2001 UNDER THIS CONTRACT DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.2 LACS. WE FIND THAT NO MATERIAL COULD BE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT ANY WORK WAS ACTUALLY DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AFT ER 30.08.2000 AND BEFORE 31.03.2001. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD, ITA NO. ITA NO.1078/AHD/2005 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE.9, AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. NAVNIRMAN INFRASTRUCTURE ASST . YEAR 2001-02 - 9 - WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). 16. IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND CONTRACT IN ISSUE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT WORK OF RS.4,47,423/- WAS CAR RIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PERIOD 12.02.2001 TO 20.06.2001 AND ACCORDINGLY, ON THE PRO-RATA BASIS HE ESTIMATED THE CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS AT RS.1,64,257/- AS ON 31.03.2001 AND ADDED THE SAME T O THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(AP PEALS) ON THE BASIS OF A LETTER OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER FOUND T HAT OUT OF RS.4,47,423/- WORK OF RS.3,48,064/- WAS COMMENCED ON 5.06.2001. T HUS, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT O NLY WORK OF RS.1 LAC WAS DONE DURING THE PERIOD 12.02.2001 TO 20.06. 2001 AND THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO WORK OUT CLOSING WORK-IN- PROGRESS AS ON 31.03.2001 ON PRO-RATA BASIS. 17. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF THIRD PROJECT IN ISSUE , THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED RS.5,14,535/- TO THE CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS OF RS.15,94,000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) FOUND THAT WORK OF RS.5,14,535/ - WAS DONE DURING THE PERIOD 19.03.2001 TO 19.06.2001 AND THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO CALCULATE THE WORK-IN- PROGRESS FOR 12 DAYS ON PRO-RATA BASIS AND RE-CALCULATE THE AMOUNT OF WO RK-IN-PROGRESS ACCORDINGLY. 18. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF ITA NO. ITA NO.1078/AHD/2005 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE.9, AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. NAVNIRMAN INFRASTRUCTURE ASST . YEAR 2001-02 - 10 - INCOME TAX(APPEALS). WE FIND THAT NO MATERIAL WAS B ROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INC URRED BY THE ASSESSEE UPTO 31.03.2001 WAS MORE THAN THE CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRESS CALCULATED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X(APPEALS). IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 04.09.2009. SD/- SD/- ( T.K. SHARMA ) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 04 /09/2009 PARAS# COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD.CIT(A)XV, AHMEDABA D 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD