DCIT, Jaipur V. UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS(RAMA), Jaipur

ITA 148/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5322 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROSHANTA MEENA J
• Assessee Lawyers: VARUN BANSAL C A DHK
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Document seized; Fair market value; Onus to prove; Documents seized
• Section: 69C; 56(2); 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 148/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 JAIPUR CUKE VS. M/S. UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (RAMA), 8 TH FLOOR, THE MILESTONE, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AACFU 0146 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 149/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 JAIPUR CUKE VS. M/S. UNIQUE AFFORDABLE HOMES (P) LTD. 8 TH FLOOR, THE MILESTONE, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AAACU 9543 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 150/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 JAIPUR CUKE VS. M/S. MURANO DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. 338, TRIPOLIA BAZAR, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AAFCM 0318 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : MS. ROSHANTA MEENA, JCIT-DR FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY :SHRI VARUN BANSAL, CA LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 05/05/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 /05/2016 ITA NO. 148/JP/2014 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,JAIPUR VS. M/S. UNIQUE BUIL DERS & DEVELOPERS (RAMA). , JAIPUR . 2 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-CENTRAL, JAIPUR DATED 17-12-201 3, 16-12-2013 AND 12- 12-2013 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 OF A BOVE ASSESSEES. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE ASSESSEES. 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 RS. 45,69,068/- MADE BY THE AO BY AN APPLICATION OF SECTION 145(3) AND ESTIMATION OF PROFITS WHEN THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS NOT MAINTAININ G 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 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN REJECTING APPLICATION OF PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD ADOPTED BY THE AO WHEN THIS REJEC TION MEANS ACCEPTANCE OF LOSS RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED I N CONSTRUCTION AND SALE OF RESIDENTIAL/ COMMERCIAL PROJECTS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, LD. CIT(A) JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACTS THAT THE TWO BROTHERS SHRI AJAY PAL SINGH AND SHRI AJIT PAL SINGH WERE ACTIV ELY ENGAGED IN BUSINESS TOGETHER IN THE SISTER CONCERNS OF THE ASS ESSEE FIRM ITSELF ITA NO. 148/JP/2014 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,JAIPUR VS. M/S. UNIQUE BUIL DERS & DEVELOPERS (RAMA). , JAIPUR . 3 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 7,57,1 50/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF INVESTMENT. 2.1 AT OUTSET OF THE HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASS ESSEE PRAYED AS TO GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE REVENUE THAT ON SIMILAR ISSUE THE ITAT COORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 14-03-2013 (ASSESSEE' S GROUP CASE IN ITA NOS.73 TO 77/JP/2012 AND 689 TO 690/JP/2012 FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04, 04- 05, 05-06,06-07,09-10, 07-08 & 08-09). 2.2 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 2.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT EMERGES FROM THE RECORD THA T ON SIMILAR ISSUES THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY FOLLOWIN G OBSERVATION. 13. CONSIDERING ENTIRE CONSPECTUS OF THE CASE IN TH E LIGHT OF THE PECULIAR FACTS AND FINDINGS REACHED HEREIN BEFORE IN THIS CA SE, IT IS NEITHER PROPER NOR JUSTIFIED TO HOLD THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESENT TRUE AND COMPLETE PICTURE OF ITS ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS. IT IS A CASE WHERE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CORRECT AND COMPLETE. METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND ACCOUNTING STANDARD HAS BEEN REGULARLY FOLLOWED. TR UE 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 CHA NGE THE METHOD REGULARLY ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM PROJECT COMPLETION MET HOD TO PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD ON IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS. WE ARE, THEREFORE, SATISFIED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN T HIS CASE. THE LD. CIT (A), IS FOUND TO HAVE ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF LD. ASSESSI NG AUTHORITY TO INVOKE SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND MAKING ASSESSMENT IN THE MANN ER 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 ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2003-04. ITA NO. 148/JP/2014 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,JAIPUR VS. M/S. UNIQUE BUIL DERS & DEVELOPERS (RAMA). , JAIPUR . 4 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO DECIDED THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERI NG THE ITAT JUDGEMENT (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECI SION 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 ISSU E 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 TH E 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 BE EN 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 20 09-10. 4.2 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO. 4.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT EMERGES FROM THE RECORD THA T ON SIMILAR ISSUES THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY FOLLOWIN G OBSERVATION. ITA NO. 148/JP/2014 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,JAIPUR VS. M/S. UNIQUE BUIL DERS & DEVELOPERS (RAMA). , JAIPUR . 5 19. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES. IT IS A FACT THAT THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 76,93,120/- HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE DVOS REPORT AND CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULLY EXPLAINED THE INVESTMENT AND/ OR THERE IS UNEXPLAIN ED EXPENDITURE. NO DOCUMENT OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ANY AMOUNT OVER AND ABOV E THE AMOUNT ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO PURCHASE THE SAI D LAND PRESENTLY KNOWN AS UNIQUE DESTINATION. IT IS A FACT THAT ONUS IS ON THE DEPARTMENT FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION U/S 69, SECTION 69B OR SECTION 69C OF THE ACT THAT THERE IS UNDERSTATEMENT OF INVE STMENT OR UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE/INVESTMENT. ONLY WHEN SUCH BURDEN IS DISCHARGED BY THE REVENUE, THE ONUS SHIFT ON THE AS SESSEE TO PROVE THAT THERE IS NO UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE/ INVESTMEN T. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. NAVEEN GER A 328 ITR 516 AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. SURAJ DEVI 328 ITR6 07 HAVE HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE ACTUA L CONSIDERATION AS PER AGREEMENT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AND NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE CASE OF BUYER BECAUSE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION AS PER THE AGREEMENT. PRIMARY BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVE UNDERST ATEMENT OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IS ON THE REVENUE AND IT IS O NLY WHEN SUCH BURDEN IS DISCHARGED, IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE TO RE LY UPON THE VALUATION GIVEN BY THE VALUATION OFFICER. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT SQUARELY APPLY TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE U S. 20. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE IS THE BUYER OF THE LAND AND A SPECIFIC AMENDMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010 W .E.F. IST JUNE, 2010 IN SECTION 56(2) BY INSERTING CLAUSE (VI IA), WHICH INTER ALIA PROVIDED THAT WHERE A FIRM RECEIVES IN ANY PRE VIOUS YEAR FROM ANY PERSON OR PERSONS ON OR AFTER FIRST DAY OF JUNE 2010 ANY PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION WHICH IS LESS THAN AGG REGATE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BY AN AMOUNT EXCEEDING RS. 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 JU NE, 2010, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT EVEN NO ADDITION CAN BE MA DE CONSIDERING ITA NO. 148/JP/2014 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,JAIPUR VS. M/S. UNIQUE BUIL DERS & DEVELOPERS (RAMA). , JAIPUR . 6 THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION 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 AUTHO RITIES BELOW, MERELY ON THE BASIS OF DVOS REPORT, IS NOT JUSTIFI ED AND THE SAME IS DELETED. HENCE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 76 ,93,120/- MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE BASIS OF DVOS R EPORT. 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 CONSIDERI NG THE ITAT JUDGEMENT (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECI SION OF COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE (SUPRA), THE GROUND NO . 4 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 149/JP/2014 UNIQUE AFFORDABLE HOMES (P) LTD. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,15,60,710/- U/S 145(3) WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT M AINTAINING QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE STOCK REGISTER. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENT A- 2/51 SEIZED FROM SHRI NAVIN BHUTANI AND A-2/19 SEIZED FROM THE DIREC TOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHRI VIBHISHEK PAL SINGH INDICAT ED ON MONEY RECEIVED ON FLATS SOLD ITA NO. 148/JP/2014 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,JAIPUR VS. M/S. UNIQUE BUIL DERS & DEVELOPERS (RAMA). , JAIPUR . 7 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN REJECTING APPLICATION OF PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD ADOPTED BY THE AO WHEN THIS REJEC TION MEANS ACCEPTANCE OF LOSS RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED I N CONSTRUCTION AND SALE OF RESIDENTIAL/ COMMERCIAL PROJECTS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, LD. CIT(A) JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACTS THAT THE TWO BROTHERS SHRI AJAY PAL SINGH AND SHRI AJIT PAL SINGH WERE ACTIV ELY ENGAGED IN BUSINESS TOGETHER IN THE SISTER CONCERNS OF THE ASS ESSEE FIRM ITSELF 5.1 AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 2 AND 4, WE FIND THAT THI S ISSUE IN QUESTION HAVE NEITHER ARISEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO NOR FR OM 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 ARE INFRUCTUOUS. 6.1 NOW WE TAKE UP THE GROUND NO. 1 AND 3 OF THE RE VENUE WHICH WE FIND THAT THE SAME IS COVERED BY THE ORDER DATED 15 -03-2013 OF COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 587 & 588 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 623/JP/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. WE FIND THAT BOTH THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THIS BENCH IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS. 13. CONSIDERING ENTIRE CONSPECTUS OF THE CASE IN TH E LIGHT OF THE PECULIAR FACTS AND FINDINGS REACHED HEREIN BEFORE IN THIS CA SE, IT IS NEITHER PROPER NOR JUSTIFIED TO HOLD THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESENT TRUE AND COMPLETE PICTURE OF ITS ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS. IT IS A CASE WHERE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CORRECT AND COMPLETE. METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND ACCOUNTING STANDARD HAS BEEN REGULARLY FOLLOWED. TR UE AND CORRECT PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COULD BE DEDUCED FROM SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THIS VIEW ITA NO. 148/JP/2014 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,JAIPUR VS. M/S. UNIQUE BUIL DERS & DEVELOPERS (RAMA). , JAIPUR . 8 OF THE MATTER THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY COULD NOT CHA NGE THE METHOD REGULARLY ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM PROJECT COMPLETION MET HOD TO PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD ON IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS. WE ARE, THEREFORE, SATISFIED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN T HIS CASE. THE LD. CIT (A), IS FOUND TO HAVE ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF LD. ASSESSI NG AUTHORITY TO INVOKE SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND MAKING ASSESSMENT IN THE MANN ER 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 ASSESSMEN T 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 CONSIDERI NG THE ITAT JUDGEMENT (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECI SION OF COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE (SUPRA), THE GROUND NO . 1 AND 3 OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 150/JP/2014 M/S. MURANO DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,74,09,574/- U/S 145(3) WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT M AINTAINING QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE STOCK REGISTER. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN REJECTING APPLICATION OF PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD ADOPTED BY THE AO WHEN THIS REJEC TION MEANS ACCEPTANCE OF LOSS RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED I N CONSTRUCTION AND SALE OF RESIDENTIAL/ COMMERCIAL PROJECTS. 7.1 AT OUTSET OF THE HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASS ESSEE PRAYED AS TO GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE REVENUE THAT ON SIMILAR ISSUE THE ITAT COORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IN FAVOUR OF THE ITA NO. 148/JP/2014 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,JAIPUR VS. M/S. UNIQUE BUIL DERS & DEVELOPERS (RAMA). , JAIPUR . 9 ASSESSEE VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 14-03-2013 (ASSESSEE' S GROUP CASE IN ITA NOS.73 TO 77/JP/2012 AND 689 TO 690/JP/2012 FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04, 04- 05, 05-06,06-07,09-10, 07-08 & 08-09). 7.2 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 7.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT EMERGES FROM THE RECORD THA T ON SIMILAR ISSUES THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEE'S GROUP CASE (SUPRA) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE B Y FOLLOWING OBSERVATION. 13. CONSIDERING ENTIRE CONSPECTUS OF THE CASE IN TH E LIGHT OF THE PECULIAR FACTS AND FINDINGS REACHED HEREIN BEFORE IN THIS CA SE, IT IS NEITHER PROPER NOR JUSTIFIED TO HOLD THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESENT TRUE AND COMPLETE PICTURE OF ITS ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS. IT IS A CASE WHERE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CORRECT AND COMPLETE. METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND ACCOUNTING STANDARD HAS BEEN REGULARLY FOLLOWED. TR UE 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 CHA NGE THE METHOD REGULARLY ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM PROJECT COMPLETION MET HOD TO PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD ON IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS. WE ARE, THEREFORE, SATISFIED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN T HIS CASE. THE LD. CIT (A), IS FOUND TO HAVE ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF LD. ASSESSI NG AUTHORITY TO INVOKE SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND MAKING ASSESSMENT IN THE MANN ER 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 ASSESSMEN T 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 CONSIDERI NG THE ITAT JUDGEMENT (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECI SION OF COORDINATE ITA NO. 148/JP/2014 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,JAIPUR VS. M/S. UNIQUE BUIL DERS & DEVELOPERS (RAMA). , JAIPUR . 10 BENCH IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE (SUPRA), THE GROUND NO . 1 AND 2 OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 /05/ 2016. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO DQY HKKJR (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (KUL BHARAT) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 13 /5/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S. UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (RAMA), JAIPUR 3. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S. UNIQUE AFFORDABLE HOMES (P) L TD. JAIPUR 4. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S. MURANO DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. J AIPUR 5. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY ) @ CIT(A), 6. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 7. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 8. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.148/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR