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

ITA 203/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5365 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MEENA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Capital asset converted into stock in trade; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Valuation report; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 56(2); 80IB; 132

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KN O] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YA DAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 203/JP/14 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (AJIT)C-116, JANPATH, LAL KOTHI SCHEME, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE DCIT, CC - 2, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AABFU 8858 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 222/JP/14 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DCIT , CC-2, JAIPUR CUKE VS. M/S UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (AJIT)C-116, JANPATH, LAL KOTHI SCHEME, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AABFU 8858 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :S HRI M.S. MEENA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 24.02.2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 /03/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. ITA NO. 203/JP/14 & 222/JP/14 M/S UNIQUE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT , CC-2, JAIPUR 2 THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WE LL AS BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), (CENTRAL), JAIPUR DATED 10.01. 2014 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE HAVE TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: GROUNDS OF APPEAL (ASSESSEE) 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HI M THUS THE ACTION DESERVES TO BE HELD BAD IN LAW AND THE INCOME DECLA RED BY THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES MADE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RETRIEVED FROM THE COMPUTER O F SHRI NAVEEN BHUTANI IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE YEAR OF COMPLETIO N OF PROJECT WHEN IN FACT LOOSE PAPER MARKED AS ANNEXURE A-2 PAGE 51 ON THE B ASIS OF WHICH PROFIT WAS WORKED OUT BY THE LD. AO WAS NEITHER SEIZED FRO M THE POSSESSION OF ASSESSEE NOR THE SAME WAS MADE UNDER INSTRUCTIONS F ROM THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS IN THE HANDWRITING OF ANY OF PARTNER NOR ANY OP PORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI NAVEEN BHUTANI WAS ALLOWED, THUS OBSER VATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE HELD BAD IN LAW. 2.1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN IGNORI NG THE FACT THAT LOOSE PAPER MARKED AS ANNEXURE A-2 PAGE 51, IN ITSELF IS A MA NIFEST DOCUMENT OF HYPOTHETICAL FIGURES AND THE FIGURES IN THE SAID PA PERS ARE IN CONFLICT AND CONTRADICTION WITH EACH OTHER WHICH IS APPARENT FR OM THE FACE OF IT AND FURTHER, REAL INCOME COULD ONLY BE TAXED AND NOT TH E HYPOTHETICAL INCOME THUS OBSERVATION OF LD. CIT(A) TO CONSIDER THE SAID LOOSE PAPER FOR MAKING THE ADDITION IN THE YEAR OF COMPLETION OF PROJECT D ESERVES TO BE IGNORED AND EXCLUDED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE REFERENCE MADE TO THE DVO B Y ADIT U/S 142A AS NO PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING BEFORE THE ADIT,INV.-1, JA IPUR THUS NO COGNIZANCE ITA NO. 203/JP/14 & 222/JP/14 M/S UNIQUE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT , CC-2, JAIPUR 3 COULD BE TAKEN OF SUCH REPORT IN ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS AND THE CONSEQUENT ADDITION MADE BASED ON THE DVOS REPORT DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 46,21,426/- (ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION DETERMINED BY DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER (DV) AGAINST THE DECLARED COST OF CONSTRUCTION ARBI TRARILY. 4.1 THUS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLD ING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE DVO FOR VALUATION OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF ONGOING PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN IN FACT THE PR OJECT WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND AO HAD NO RIGHT WITH REGARD TO SUC H REFERENCE AS THE PRECISE VALUATION ON A PARTICULAR DAY IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY UNDER CONSTRUCTION IS NOT PRACTICALLY FEASIBLE, HENCE THE ADDITION OF RS. 46,21,426/- SO UPHOLD BEING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DECLARED COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND VALUED BY DVO DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4.2 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT CO NSIDERING THE FIXED COST INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WORKING OUT THE DIFFE RENCE BETWEEN THE DECLARED COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND THE VALUATION DON E BY DVO AND IF THE SAME IS CONSIDERED THE RESULTANT DIFFERENCE WOULD B E LOWER THAN BY 5% AND THUS THE MINOR DIFFERENCE, IF ANY DESERVES TO BE IG NORED. 4.3 IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRE D IN IGNORING THE SUBMISSION MADE AND EVIDENCES ADDUCED BEFORE HIM AND FURTHERMO RE BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE DVO HAS MADE THE VALUATION BASED ON C PWD RATES AS AGAINST THE STATE PWD RATES AND FURTHER NOT ALLOWING THE CR EDIT FOR SELF SUPERVISION @ 15% AND IF THE CREDIT OF THESE FACTORS IS ALLOWED , THE RESULTANT VALUATION IS EITHER EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN THE DECLARED COST OF C ONSTRUCTION, THUS THE ADDITION OF RS.46,21,426/- DESERVES TO BE DELETED. GROUNDS OF APPEAL (REVENUE) 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) (C) JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 79,65,628 /- U/S 145(3) MADE BY THE AO ITA NO. 203/JP/14 & 222/JP/14 M/S UNIQUE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT , CC-2, JAIPUR 4 DESPITE UPHOLDING REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/ S 145(3) AND ESTIMATION OF PROFITS WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING QUANTI TATIVE AND QUALITATIVE STOCK REGISTER AND SEIZED DOCUMENTS LIKE A-2/51 FOUND FR OM THE LAPTOP OF SHRI NAVIN BHUTANI REFLECT ON MONEY RECEIVED ON THE SPECIFIC P ROJECT UNIQUE SANGHI APARTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A)(C) JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN REJECTING APPLICATION OF PERCENTAGE CO MPLETION METHOD ADOPTED BY THE AO IGNORING THAT THIS MEANS ACCEPTANCE OF LOSS RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION AND SALE OF RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL PROJECTS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A)(C) JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,83,13,0 97/- MADE BY THE AO AS PROFIT FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF S EIZED DOCUMENT LIKE A-2/51 FOUND FROM THE LAPTOP OF SHRI NAVIN BHUTANI WITH OB SERVATION THAT THIS INFORMATION IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE YEAR OF COMPLET ION OF THE PROJECT, IGNORING THAT IN NO SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR ANY PROFIT HAS BE EN DECLARED ON THE PROJECT THOUGH THE SEIZED DOCUMENT A-2/51 CONFIRMS SUCH HIG HER PROFIT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A)(C) JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/ S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT EVEN THOUGH NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCO ME FILED AND CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO. 10CCB OF PROJECT COMPLETION REQUIRED TO BE FILED U/S 80IB(10) HAS NOT BEEN FILED EVEN BEFORE CIT(A). 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE AND DEVELOPE R OF COMMERCIAL / RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE APPEL LANT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) AND HAS ADOPTED THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCOUNTING OF ITS INCOME FROM BUILDING DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY. ITA NO. 203/JP/14 & 222/JP/14 M/S UNIQUE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT , CC-2, JAIPUR 5 A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES OF APPELLANT WHEREIN, CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,21,76,630/- BY INVO KING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) AND BY SUBSTITUTING THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD FOLLOWED BY ASSESSEE WITH THE PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION METHOD FOR DETE RMINING THE INCOME FROM REAL ESTATE AND BUILDER BUSINESS, AND ACCORDINGLY I NCOME WAS DETERMINED. THE LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSE E, HOWEVER UPHELD CERTAIN ADDITIONS AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL A ND AGAINST THE ADDITIONS DELETED, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. ASSESSEES GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 01 AND DEPARTME NTAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 & 2: 3.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD. C IT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSE SSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON TH E GROUND THAT QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE STOCK REGISTER HAD NOT BEEN MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(A) UPHELD THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3), HOWEVER, THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN COMPUTING THE INCOME BY PERCENTAGE OF CO MPLETION METHOD WAS HELD BAD IN LAW AND THE CONSEQUENT ADDITION MADE OF RS. 79,65,628/- WAS DELETED BY LD. CIT(A) AGAINST WHICH THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 3.2 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLL OWED MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND IS MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CON SISTING OF CASH BOOK, LEDGER, JOURNAL ETC. ALL THE PURCHASES AND EXPENSES ARE DU LY VOUCHED AND SUPPORTED BY ITA NO. 203/JP/14 & 222/JP/14 M/S UNIQUE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT , CC-2, JAIPUR 6 REQUISITE EVIDENCES AND WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD . AO AS AND WHEN REQUIRED BY HIM FROM TIME TO TIME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WERE EXAMINED BY HIM AND NO SPECIFIC DEFECT WHATSOE VER WAS POINTED OUT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE ARE SUBJECT TO AUDIT AND THE AUDITOR HAS NOWHERE MA DE ANY ADVERSE REMARK IN THE AUDIT REPORT ABOUT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS. 3.3 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT APPEA L OF ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR BEN CH, JAIPUR WHICH VIDE COMBINED ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR A SSESSMENT YEARS A.Y. 2006-07 TO 2009-10 IN ITA NOS. 467,468,469 & 470/JP/2012 (A SSESSEES APPEALS) & 614,615,616 & 617/JP/2012 (DEPTS APPEAL) AND A GRO UP MEMBER OF ASSESSEE [UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (REALTY)] FOR A.Y 200 6-07 TO 2008-09 IN ITA NOS. 464, 465 & 466/JP/2012 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) AND 620, 621 & 622/JP/2012 (DEPTS APPEAL) WHEREIN, THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE THE COMBINED ORDER IN IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ISSUES HAS CATEGORICALL Y UPHELD THE APPLICATION OF PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE AS AGAINST THE PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION METHOD AS APPLIED BY LD. AO. HONBLE IT AT FURTHER HELD THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) MERELY ON THE GROUND OF NON- MAINTENANCE OF QUANTITY AND QUALITY WISE STOCK REGI STER AS BAD IN LAW. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE ITAT AS CONTAI NED IN PARA 38-40 AT PAGES 71 TO 77 OF THE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER. 38. AS ALREADY MENTIONED THE MAIN ISSUES IN QUESTI ON HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY US AND EARLIER BENCH THE APPEALS OF O THER GROUP ENTITIES. RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN EXTRAC TED ABOVE. THE FIRST ITA NO. 203/JP/14 & 222/JP/14 M/S UNIQUE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT , CC-2, JAIPUR 7 REASON ATTRIBUTED FOR REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS I S TO THE EFFECT THAT ASSESSEES HAVE NOT MAINTAINED A DETAILED QUALITATIVE AND QUAN TITATIVE STOCK REGISTER AND FAILED TO VALUE ITS CLOSING STOCK ON SUCH QUALITATI VE CUM QUANTITATIVE STOCK REGISTER. THE ASSESSEES CONTENDS THAT THEY HAVE KEP T BOTH QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DETAILS OF MATERIAL PURCHASED BY IT AS IS EVIDENT FROM VARIOUS LEDGER ACCOUNTS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL THAT WERE FORMING PART OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. A LL THE EXPENSES RELATING TO THE PROJECT INCLUDING MATERIAL PURCHASED WERE CHARG ED TO PROJECT/WORK-IN- PROGRESS AND DIRECTLY TAKEN TO THE BALANCE SHEET. I N OTHER WORDS, THE MATERIAL PURCHASED FOR THE PROJECT ARE ISSUED TO SITE IMMEDI ATELY AFTER ITS PURCHASE AND TRANSFERRED TO PROJECT IN PROGRESS FOR DETERMINING PROFIT AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. NO EXPENDITURE IS CHARGE D TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS THEY WERE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND THE RELEVANT CO NSTRUCTION EXPENSES WERE CAPITALIZED. THE QUANTITY SO ISSUED TO THE SITES/PR OJECTS IS RECORDED IN SEPARATE RECORDS MAINTAINED FOR EACH ITEM OF BUILDING MATERI AL USED THEREIN. THERE WAS THUS NO PRACTICAL NEED TO MAINTAIN A DETAILED QUALI TY-WISE QUANTITATIVE REGISTER BY THE APPELLANT MORE SO WHEN THE VALUATION ON COST BASIS COULD BE ACCURATELY MADE FROM THE LEDGERS. IT IS NEITHER THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE HAVE BEEN OMISSION OR FAILURE TO RECORD ANY PURCHAS ES OR DIRECT EXPENSES TO THE PROJECT IN PROCESS NOR EVEN A CASE THAT THE ASS ESSEES INFLATED THE COST OF SUCH STOCK WHICH IS BASICALLY CAPITALIZED COST OF C ONSTRUCTION IN THE LEDGERS. THE ACCOUNTS ARE DULY AUDITED BY A QUALIFIED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AS PER PAST ACCOUNTING PRACTICES, POLICIES AND REVENUE RECOGNIT ION METHOD ON APPROVED METHOD I.E. PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE SEIZED AND THE SAME WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSES CLAIM TO HAVE ALSO PRODUCED REQUISITE VOUCHERS AND RECORD AS REQU IRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AL SO APPEARS TO HAVE CASUALLY STATED THAT AS PER AS-2 IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE DE TAILS OF BOTH QUALITY AS WELL AS QUANTITY OF DIFFERENT ITEMS OF STOCKS INCLUDING DET AILS OF DIRECT EXPENSES AND COSTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED METICULOUSLY. I N FACT, THE AS-2 NOTIFIED BY THE CBDT RELATES TO DISCLOSURE OF PRIOR PERIOD AND EXTRA ORDINARY ITEMS AND CHANGE OF ACCOUNTING POLICIES. THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAI NED BY THE ASSESSES CONFORM TO THE COMMERCIALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING STA NDARDS WHICH ENABLE DETERMINATION OF CORRECT PROFITS OF ASSESSEE'S BUSI NESS AS DONE IN PAST YEARS. THE FINDINGS REACHED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFICIENCIES AS POINTED OUT FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS AS WELL, VALU ATION OF INVENTORY, CHANGE OF METHOD OF ACCOUNTING TO % COMPLETION METHOD ARE NEI THER FACTUALLY CORRECT ITA NO. 203/JP/14 & 222/JP/14 M/S UNIQUE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT , CC-2, JAIPUR 8 NOR GRAVE ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN THEM. RELIANCE PLACED O N PANDIT BROTHERS VS. CIT (SUPRA) SUPPORTS ASSESSEE'S PROPOSITION THAT MERELY BECAUSE STOCK REGISTER IS NOT MAINTAINED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ACCOUNTS BOOK MUST BE FALSE. MORE SO IN THESE CASES ARE ADOPTING PROJECT COMPLETION M ETHOD AND PROFITS WERE ASCERTAINABLE ONLY AT THE COMPLETION OF THE RESPECT IVE PROJECT. BESIDES IT HAD ELIGIBILITY FOR DEDUCTION OF ALL ITS PROJECT PROFIT S U/S 80IB. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE UNABLE TO INFER THAT ANY VALID AND PERSUASIVE REASONS EXISTED FOR ASSESSES TO FALSIFY THEIR BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS. THIS EXERCISE HAS NO BENEFITS RATHER IT PUTS THEM IN CONTROVERSIES WHICH ARE GLARING ENOUGH. BESIDES SUCH WIDESPREAD MISMANAGEMENT WILL YIELD SOME INCRI MINATING MATERIAL DURING THE SEARCH, SEIZURE AND SURVEY OPERATIONS. L D. AO HAS NOT RELIED ON ANY MATERIAL IN THIS BEHALF; THE ISSUE OF MR. I3HUTANI WILL BE DEALT HEREINAFTER. ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER RELIED ON THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF S.N. NAMASIVAYAM CHETTIAR VS. CIT, SUPRA HOLDING THAT INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE TO CONSIDER THE MATERIAL WHICH IS PLACED BEFORE THEM AND ONLY AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IN ANY CASE THE ABSENCE O F STOCK REGISTER COUPLED WITH OTHER MATERIAL, ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CORREC T PROFITS AND GAINS COULD NOT BE DEDUCED THEN THEY WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF REJECTION OF BOOKS. VIEWING THE FACTS OF ASSESSEES CASE IN TH E LIGHT OF THESE FINDINGS OUR FOREGOING OBSERVATIONS ABOUT CORRECTNESS OF BOOKS B ECOME VERY MATERIAL INASMUCH AS THERE IS NEITHER ANY GAIN NOR MOTIVE FO R ASSESSES TO INDULGING IN SUCH PRACTICES WHEN ALL THE PROFITS WERE DEDUCTIBLE U/S 80IB. BESIDES THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED TO CO ME TO A JUSTICIABLE CONCLUSION TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF REGULARLY AUDITED ACCOUNTS. A GENERALIZED OBSERVATION ABOUT THE 'NOTORIOUS TRADE PRACTICES' I N REAL ESTATE BUSINESS CANNOT BE A REASON FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS. HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF LALCHAND BHAGAT AMBICA RAM (SUPRA) AND HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DISCOVERY ESTATE PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT PRACTICE OF MAKING ADDITIONS ON MERE SUSPICIONS AND SURMISES OR BY TAKING NOTE OF THE 'NOTORIOUS TRADE PRACTICES' PREVAILING IN TRADE CIR CLES CANNOT BE RELIED FOR MAKING ADDITIONS. CONSEQUENTLY AND FINDING OF 'ON-M ONEY TRANSACTIONS' BASED ON ASSUMPTION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATI NG MATERIAL OR EXAMINATION OF BUYERS IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND JUST IFICATION. THESE OBSERVATIONS, THEREFORE CANNOT BE VALID REASONS FOR REJECTING THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGU LAR COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS AS PER PAST PRACTICES AND ACCOUNTING POLICIES. ITA NO. 203/JP/14 & 222/JP/14 M/S UNIQUE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT , CC-2, JAIPUR 9 39. APROPOS SUBSTITUTING THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FROM PROJECT COMPLETION TO % COMPLETION BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS BY OBSE RVATIONS THAT ASSESSEE'S HAVE NOT FOLLOWED ACCOUNTING STANDARDS 9 & 7 WHICH TANTAMOUNT TO NOT FOLLOWING ACCOUNTING STANDARD-I AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 145(2) OF THE ACT. IT IS ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE APPELLANT WERE REG ULARLY FOLLOWING PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND THE ASSESSM ENTS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH WERE ALSO FRAMED BY ACCEPTING PROJECT COMPLE TION METHOD. AS PER ICAI GUIDE LINES REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER HAS AN OPTION TO CHOOSE FROM PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD OR THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METH OD AS BOTH ARE RECOGNIZED METHODS FOR REVENUE RECOGNITION IN SUCH CASES. ONCE THE OPTION IS EXERCISED BY ASSSESSEE, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO SUBSTITUTE HIS OWN OPINION TO CHANGE THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING BECA USE MID WAY IT IS FOUND THAT OTHER METHOD OF ACCOUNTING BETTER SUITS THE RE VENUE. IT IS THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE, CONSISTENT FOLLOWING OF METHOD AND ITS E ARLIER ADOPTION WHICH DECIDES THE ISSUE AND NOT THE SUITABILITY OR REVENU E. 40. WE HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED THAT IN ANY CASE ASS ESSSEE'S ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB AGAINST THEIR INCOME, IN THIS EV ENTUALITY, TAKE THIS METHOD OR THAT, THE RESULT IS NIL TAXABLE PROFITS AFTER DE DUCTION. THUS IN THESE CASES THE SUBSTITUTION OF METHOD TO % COMPLETION METHOD I S BASED ON SURMISES, UNWARRANTED FACTS, IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND A FRUITLESS EXERCISE. EXCEPT MAKING SOME ACADEMIC AND THEORETICAL RHETORIC'S, TH E REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING A DOPTED BY ASSESSEE IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH SET ACCOUNTING GUIDELINES, P ROVISIONS OF SEC. 145. HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT . V. SIKKA & ANOTHER (1984) 149 ITR 73 (DEL.) HELD THAT IF THE METHOD OF ACCOUN TING IS ACCEPTED IN FIRST YEAR AND REGULARLY FOLLOWED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR IT CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED AT THE WHIMS OF AO. IT IS NOT MANDATORY FOR A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER TO FOLLOW PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION METHOD AS PRESCRIBED BY TH E INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA UNDER AS-7. AS-7 ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA RECOGNIZES THE POSITION THAT I N THE CASE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS THE ASSESSEE CAN FOLLOW EITHER THE PROJEC T COMPLETION METHOD OR THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD. NEITHER THE REVISED G UIDANCE NOTES 2012 ISSUED BY INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF IND IA NOR THE EXPOSURE DRAFT FOR GUIDANCE NOTE ON RECOGNITION OF REVENUE ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTS OF INDIA IN 2011 ARE MANDATORY O R OVERRIDE THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO TAKEN CONTRADICTORY STAND; ON ONE HAND IT IS ITA NO. 203/JP/14 & 222/JP/14 M/S UNIQUE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT , CC-2, JAIPUR 10 HELD THAT THERE CAN BE NO REVENUE RECOGNITION UNLES S 25% PROJECT IS COMPLETE, RIGHTLY SO AS NO BUILDER CAN EARN FROM PLINTH OR PI LLARS ON OTHER HAND IT IS HELD THAT THE PROPERTY IN STANDS TRANSFERRED BY BOOKING AMOUNT. THIS CLEARLY IMPLIES COMPLETION OF SALE AND REVENUE GENERATION. WE MAY HASTEN TO ADD THAT THE STUBBORN STAND OF AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS LE AD TO UNIMAGINABLE CONTRADICTIONS AND ANOMALIES. WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE' S METHOD DOES NOT LEAD TO ANY SUCH EVENTUALITIES AS IT WAS REGULARLY FOLLO WED AND ACCEPTED BY DEPARTMENT BESIDES BEING ONE OF THE WELL FOLLOWED M ETHOD AMONG REAL ESTATE BUILDERS. THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANTS, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE FAULTED WITH BY THE REVENUE . THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT BY NOT FOLLOWING AS-9 & 7 THE SAME TANTAMOUNT TO NOT FOLLOWING PRESCRIBED AS-L UNDER SECTION 145(2) OF THE ACT IS PROFOUNDLY MISPLACED, UNNECESSARY AND UNCALLED FOR BESIDES BEI NG CONTRARY TO PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTANCY AND INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. THE SAME, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE TAKEN A VALID BASIS FOR CHA NGE OF METHOD REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE APPELLANT. THUS WE UPHOLD THE METHO D OF REVENUE RECOGNITION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE'S AS 'PROJECT C OMPLETION METHOD. THE OTHER JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE MEN TIONED IN ITAT ORDERS AS WELL AS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SUPPORT OUR VIEW. THUS, IT CAN CLEARLY BE NOTED FROM THE OBSERVATIONS ABOVE THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE WERE UPHELD BY TH IS HONBLE BENCH AND FURTHER, THE REGULAR METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY ASSESSEE BEING THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THIS HONBLE B ENCH IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF AND WHICH HAS BEEN RIGHTLY CONFIRME D BY LD CIT(A). 3.4 THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. 3.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURSUE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE VIS--VIS THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS. FURTHER, NOTHING HA S BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE CONTROVERTING THE EARLIER FINDINGS OF COORDINATE BE NCH AND ANY SUBSEQUENT LEGAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE MATTER. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE COORDINATE BENCHS ITA NO. 203/JP/14 & 222/JP/14 M/S UNIQUE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT , CC-2, JAIPUR 11 DECISION (SUPRA), WE UPHELD MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WHICH HAS BEEN FOLL OWED CONSISTENTLY BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ASSESSEES GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 02 TO 2.1 & DE PARTMENT GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 03: 4.1 THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATES TO THE ADDITION S BASED ON SEIZED PAPER A- 2 PAGE 51 WHICH HAVE BEEN SEIZED FROM THE POSSESSI ON OF SHRI NAVEEN BHUTANI BY FOLLOWING PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION METHOD. 4.2 LD AR SUBMITTED THAT ALONGWITH THE SEARCH ON TH E MEMBERS OF UNIQUE GROUP ON 28.01.2009, A SEARCH U/S 132 WAS SIMULTANE OUSLY CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI NAVEEN BHUTANI, ONE OF THE EX-EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THIS SEIZED PAPER A-2 PAGE 51, CERTA IN ENTRIES WERE FOUND NOTED WHICH CONTAINED CERTAIN FIGURES. ON THE BASIS OF TH IS PAPER, THE LD. AO PROCEEDED TO PRESUME THE ENTRIES AS TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,83,13,097/- IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 4.3 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALS O COVERED IN THE FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR BE NCH, JAIPUR WHICH VIDE ITS COMBINED ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR A .Y 2006-07 TO 2009-10 IN ITA NOS. 467,468,469 & 470/JP/2012 (ASSESSEES APPEALS) & 614,615,616 & 617/JP/2012 (DEPTS APPEAL) AND A GROUP MEMBER OF A SSESSEE [UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (REALTY)] FOR A.YRS. 2006-07 TO 2008-09 IN ITA NOS. 464, 465 & 466/JP/2012 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) AND 620, 621 & 622/ JP/2012 (DEPTS APPEAL) ITA NO. 203/JP/14 & 222/JP/14 M/S UNIQUE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT , CC-2, JAIPUR 12 WHEREIN, THE HONBLE ITAT IN IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ISSUES INVOLVED, HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY LD. AO A ND HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 41. APROPOS ANNEXURE A-2/51 AS WELL AS THE STATEM ENT OF SHRI NAVEEN BHUTANI RECORDED ON 28.01.2009 UNDER SECTION 132( 4) OF THE ACT REGARDING A PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM HIS LAPTOP; HE STATED THAT IT WAS IN REL ATION TO UNIQUE DREAM BUILDERS ONLY AND NOT THE ASSESSEE ENTITIES. THIS P ERSON WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE APPELLANTS AND AO HIMSELF ADMITS THAT THE PRINT OUT INVENTORIZED AS SEIZED ANNEXURE A-2/51 REVEALING NE T REALIZATION OF RS. 17.91 CRORES AND A PROFIT OF RS. 5.17 CRORES REFLECTS ONL Y THE ESTIMATES. THE SAID DOCUMENT DOES NOT REVEAL THE ACTUAL STATE OF AFFAIR S OF THE PROJECTS DONE BY THE ASSESSEES. NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN F OUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH ON HIM OR FROM EITHER SIDE OF SEPARATED GROUP TO SU PPORT THAT FIGURES WRITTEN THEREIN FOR THE AREA CONSTRUCTED, SOLD OR TRANSFERR ED NOR ABOUT THE NET REALIZATION OR PROFITS EARNED IN ANY SUCH PROJECTS. THE SAID EXCEL SHEET DATA WAS PREPARED FOR MARKETING OF UNIQUE BUILDER'S PROJ ECTS PRODUCTS AND COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS A RELEVANT AND RELIABLE INFORMATION OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS OR EARNING ANY EXTRA MONEY OR 'ON MONEY' WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH COULD ENABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REJECT THE AC COUNTS MAINTAINED IN REGULAR COURSE. IN FACT, THIS DOCUMENT AS SUCH DID NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT. THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW MADE SOME PROJECTIONS TO CONVERT THESE HYPOTHETICAL FIGURES I NTO ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS OPERATIONS ON HYPOTHETICAL ASSUMPTIONS. THE BOOKING AGREEMENTS OF THESE FLATS WERE REACHED AT DIFFERENT TIMINGS AT DIFFEREN T LOCATIONS WITH DIFFERENT SPECIFICATIONS. THE APPELLANTS HAVE MADE DETAILED S UBMISSIONS IN THE SYNOPSIS ON THIS FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, INCONSISTENCIES IN L APTOP PROJECTIONS, IMPOSSIBILITY OF SUCH PROFITS IN REAL ESTATE TRADE AS EXTRAPOLATED BY DEPARTMENT AND EXPLAINED VARIATION IN RATES. THE EX PLANATION IS BONAFIDE AND REMAINS UNCONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. THE OBSERVAT ION AS WELL AS FINDINGS REACHED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW CANNOT BE UPHELD AS TH EY LACK IN CREDIBILITY BEING BASED ON IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND PURE C ONJECTURES. LOOKING AT THE GAMUT OF INCONSISTENCIES AND INFIRMITIES IN THE PRO JECTIONS OF DEPARTMENT VIS- A-VIS LAPTOP FOUND FROM MR. BHUTANI, THEREFORE, COU LD NOT BE A REASON SUFFICIENT TO ENDORSE THAT THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE UNRELIABLE OR THEY WERE NOT VERIFIABLE. CONSEQUENTL Y ASSESSEES GROUND IN THIS BEHALF DESERVE TO BE ALLOWED. ON THESE FACTS THE IT AT JAIPUR IN SIMILAR GROUP ITA NO. 203/JP/14 & 222/JP/14 M/S UNIQUE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT , CC-2, JAIPUR 13 CASES HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THESE ISSUES IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THIS HONBLE BENCH, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SAID PAPER SEIZED FROM THE POSSESSION OF MR. NAVEEN BHUTANI ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY LD. AO IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE IN AS MUCH AS THE SAME REPRESENTS MEREL Y ESTIMATES AND FICTIONAL FIGURES WHICH ARE NOT PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE AND THER EFORE, THE SAME DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,83,13,097/- HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4.4 THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. 4.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURSUED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE VIS--VIS THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS. FURTHER, NOTHING HA S BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE CONTROVERTING THE EARLIER FINDINGS OF COORDINATE BE NCH. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE COORDINATE BENCHS DECISION (SUPRA), WE UPHELD THE DELETION OF RS 4,83,13,097 AS DONE BY LD CIT(A). 5. ASSESSEES GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 03 TO 4.3: 5.1 UNDER THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE REFERENCE MADE U/S 142A TO THE DVO. THE LD. AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 46,21, 426/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DECLARE D BY ASSESSEE AND DETERMINED BY DVO PERTAINING TO YEAR UNDER APPEAL. ITA NO. 203/JP/14 & 222/JP/14 M/S UNIQUE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT , CC-2, JAIPUR 14 5.2 BRIEF FACTS PERTAINING TO THIS GROUND OF APPEAL ARE THAT A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DVO BY THE ADIT, INV.-1, JAIPUR, VIDE L ETTER DATED 13.05.2009 FOR ESTIMATION OF VALUE OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE UNIQU E GROUP IN CONSTRUCTION OF ITS VARIOUS PROJECTS, OF WHICH APPELLANT IS ONE OF THE MEMBER. ACTING UPON SUCH REFERENCE, THE DVO ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 142A DATED 0 3.06.2009 TO SHRI RAVINDER PAL SINGH, ONE OF THE PARTNERS, CALLING FOR INFORMA TION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTIMATION OF VALUE OF INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION O F VARIOUS PROPERTIES INCLUDING THE PROJECT SOUTHERN HEIGHTS, BELONGING TO THE AS SESSEE APPELLANT. AFTER OBTAINING NECESSARY DETAILS AND CONDUCTING PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF THE CONCERNED PROJECTS, THE DVO SUBMITTED ITS VALUATION REPORT WH ICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE AO IN MAKING THE SUBJECT ADDITION. 5.3 LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO SQUARE LY COVERED IN THE FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR BE NCH, JAIPUR WHICH VIDE COMBINED ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR A .Y. 2006-07 TO 2009-10 IN ITA NOS. 467,468,469 & 470/JP/2012 (ASSESSEES APPEALS) & 614,615,616 & 617/JP/2012 (DEPTS APPEAL) AND A GROUP MEMBER OF A SSESSEE [UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (REALTY)] FOR A.YRS. 2006-07 TO 2008-09 IN ITA NOS. 464, 465 & 466/JP/2012 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) AND 620, 621 & 622/ JP/2012 (DEPTS APPEAL) WHEREIN, THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE THE COMBINED ORDER I N IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ISSUES HAS HELD THE REFERENCE MAD E TO DVO AS INVALID AND ILLEGAL AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER: 42. ADVERTING TO THE ISSUE OF REFERENCE U/S 142A BY THE ADIT TO DVO, THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED ABOVE. IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS SECTION EMPOWERS ONLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AUTHORIZED O FFICER TO MAKE REFERENCE TO THE DVO U/S 142A OF THE ACT. THIS SECTION DOES NOT USE ANY TERM LIKE ADIT BEING AN ITA NO. 203/JP/14 & 222/JP/14 M/S UNIQUE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT , CC-2, JAIPUR 15 AUTHORIZED OFFICER. FURTHER IT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTE D THAT WHAT HAS BEEN REFERRED TO FOR VALUATION OF STOCK IN TRADE OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ANY INVESTMENT REFERRED U/S 69A OR 69B; BUILLION, JEWELLERY OR ANY OTHER VALUAB LE ARTICLE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 69A OR 69B; IS NOT A PROPERTY REFERRED U/S 56(2) OF THE ACT. IN THESE EVENTUALITIES, THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. UMIYA CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. , 314 ITR 272 (GUJ) AND ME & M UMMY HOSPITAL VS. ACIT 107 OTR 209 (GUJ) AND VARIOUS OTHER JUDGEMENTS CITED BE FORE US SUPPORT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS DVO REFERENCE IS HELD TO BE INVALID. WE ALSO FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DVO OU GHT TO HAVE APPLIED THE PWD RATES IN PLACE OF CPWD RATES. BESIDES 2.5% REBATE O N ACCOUNT OF SELF SUPERVISION AND SELF BULK PROCUREMENT OF MATERIAL IS TOO MEAGRE . IN OUR VIEW THIS REBATE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TO AT LEAST TO THE SCALE OF 5% AS THE ASSESSEES ARE THE PROFESSIONAL BUILDERS HAVING THEIR OWN ENGINEERING STAFF. GOING BY DVO VALUATION, THE DIFFERENCE OF VALUATION COMES TO 5-5.5% WHICH AMOUN TS TO NOMINAL DIFFERENCE WHEN VIEWED 'FROM THE ANGLE THAT ITS COMPARISONS OF TWO ESTIMATES WHICH BASICALLY ARE TWO OPINIONS. IF THE PWD RATES ARC AP PLIED ALONGWITH 5% REBATE AS MENTIONED ABOVE THEN IT WILL LEAVE NO SCOPE FOR ANY DIFFERENCE OR ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION REPORT. THUS DVO'S REFERENCE I S BAD IN LAW BEING VOID AB INITIO BESIDES IT HAS NO MERIT. CONSEQUENTLY, ANY ADDITION IN RESPECT OF VALUATION CANNOT BE MADE UNDER THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. 5.4 THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. 5.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURSUED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE VIS--VIS THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS. FURTHER, NOTHING HA S BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE CONTROVERTING THE EARLIER FINDINGS OF COORDINATE BE NCH. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE COORDINATE BENCHS DECISION (SUPRA), THE ADDITION M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE D ECLARED BY THE APPELLANT AND AS DETERMINED BY DVO AT RS. 46,21,426/- IS DELETED. 6. DEPARTMENTAL GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 04: ITA NO. 203/JP/14 & 222/JP/14 M/S UNIQUE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT , CC-2, JAIPUR 16 6.1 UNDER THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A)(C) JAIPUR IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALL OW DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT EVEN THOUGH NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME FILED AND CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO. 10CCB OF PROJECT COMPLETION REQUIRED TO BE FILED U/S 80IB(10) HAS NOT BEEN FILED EVEN BEFORE CIT(A). 6.2 AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT, THIS ISSU E IS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED IN THE FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE I TAT, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR WHICH VIDE COMBINED ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y 2006-07 TO 2009-10 IN ITA NOS. 467,468,469 & 470/JP/2012 (ASSESSEES APPE ALS) & 614,615,616 & 617/JP/2012 (DEPTS APPEAL) AND A GROUP MEMBER OF A SSESSEE [UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (REALTY)] FOR A.Y 2006-07 TO 2008-09 IN ITA NOS. 464, 465 & 466/JP/2012 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) AND 620, 621 & 622/ JP/2012 (DEPTS APPEAL) WHEREIN, THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE THE COMBINED ORDER I N IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ISSUES HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 44. APROPOS THE ALLOWABILITY OF SEC. 80IB DEDUCTI ON TO ASSESSES, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF ID. CIT(A) IN AS MUCH AS PER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD ASSESSES HAVE COMPLIED WITH RELEVANT CONDITI ONS OF SEC. 80IB. BESIDES REVENUE GROUNDS CHALLENGE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE U/R 46A AND RELIEF BASED THEREON. THUS ASSESSEE'S ELIGIBILITY O N MERITS IS NOT SPECIFICALLY CHALLENGED. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF ID. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB, FURTHERMO RE IT WILL BE ELIGIBLE IN THE YEAR OF REVENUE RECOGNITION. BY UPHOLDING THE PROJE CT COMPLETION METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND UPHOLDING OF BOOKS OR ACCOUNTS AND R EJECTION OF ESTIMATES; THERE WILL BE NO TAXABLE PROFITS. 6.3 THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. ITA NO. 203/JP/14 & 222/JP/14 M/S UNIQUE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT , CC-2, JAIPUR 17 6.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURSUED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE VIS--VIS THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS. FURTHER, NOTHING HA S BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE CONTROVERTING THE EARLIER FINDINGS OF COORDINATE BE NCH. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE COORDINATE BENCHS DECISION (SUPRA), WE SEE NO INFI RMITY IN THE ORDER OF ID. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB AND THE SAME IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 /0 3/2016. SD/- SD/- ( R.P. TOLANI) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 16 / 02 /2016 PILLAI VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- M/S UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS , JAIPUR 2. THE RESPONDENT- THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIP UR 3. THE CIT(A) CENTRAL, JAIPUR 4. THE CIT, CENTRAL, JAIPUR 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA 2023 & 222/JP/14) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR.