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

ITA 392/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99466 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B K GUPTA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Loose papers
• Section: 80IB

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 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. 392/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S. UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (REALTY), UDB TOWER, SB 59, 3 RD FLOOR, OPP.JAIPUR NAGAR NIGAM, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AABFU 7549 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 427/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 JAIPUR CUKE VS. M/S. UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (REALTY), UDB TOWER, SB 59, 3 RD FLOOR, OPP. JAIPUR NAGAR NIGAM, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AABFU 7549 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI B.K. GUPTA, CIT LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 04/11/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 /11/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM:- BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE THE CROSS APPEALS FILED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-CENTRAL, JAIPUR DATED 28-03-2014 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. ITA NO. 392/JP/2014 M/S. UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (REALTY) VS. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JAIPUR . 2 2.1 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN UPHOLDING THE APPLICATION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 1 45(3) OF THE ACT 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN FACTS AND L AW IN ENHANCING THE PROFITS OF RS. 3,27,60,000/-FOR THE Y EAR UNDER APPEAL FROM ITS PROJECT WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS MARKED AS ANNEXURE A-2 PAGE 51. 2.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT REAL INCOME COULD ONLY BE TAXED AND NOT THE HYPOTHETICAL INCOME AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE AO. 2.3 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PLACING HEAVY RELI ANCE ON THE PAPER A-2 PAGE 51) STATED TO HAVE BEEN FOUND AN D SEIZED FROM THE THIRD PARTY (NAVEEN BHUTANI) WITHOUT APPRE CIATING THE TRUE NATURE OF ENTRIES CONTAINED THEREIN. 2.2 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: - 1(I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING PERCENTAGE COMPL ETION METHOD ADOPTED BY THE AO FOR ESTIMATING PROFIT ON THE GROUND HON'BLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NOS. 73/ JP/2012 AND 211/JP/12 IN THE CASE OF UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVE LOPERS (KRISHNA) HAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE UPH OLDING PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD IGNORING THAT THE AFO RESAID ITAT ORDER HAS BEEN CONTESTED BY THE DEPARTMENT BEF ORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND THE APPEAL IS STILL PENDING. THE ENHANCEMENT WAS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT ANNEXURE A-2/51 (COPY ENCLOSED) FOU ND FROM THE LAP-TOP OF SHRI NAVEEN BHUTANI AND THE ENHANCEMENT WAS WARRANTED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE METHO D, BE IT PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD TAKEN BY THE AO OR PRO JECT COMPLETION METHOD TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. (II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW D EDUCTION ITA NO. 392/JP/2014 M/S. UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (REALTY) VS. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JAIPUR . 3 U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT EVEN THOUGH THE PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETED. 2.3 AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT ALL THE ISSUES RAISED IN ASSESSEE AS WELL AS IN REVENUE APP EAL ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY DETAILED ORDER OF COORDIN ATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 30-04-2015 IN ITA NOS. 464 TO 466/JP/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2008-09 BY FOLL OWING OBSERVATIONS FROM PAGES 71 TO 79. 38. AS ALREADY MENTIONED THE MAIN ISSUES IN QUES TION HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY US AND EARLIER BENCH THE APPEALS OF OTHER GROUP ENTITIES. RELEVANT EXTRACTS F THE JUDGM ENTS HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED ABOVE. THE FIRST REASON ATTRIBUTED FOR RE JECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS TO THE EFFECT THAT ASSESSEES HAVE NOT M AINTAINED A DETAILED QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE STOCK REGISTE R AND FAILED TO VALUE ITS CLOSING STOCK ON SUCH QUALITATIVE CUM QUA NTITATIVE STOCK REGISTER. THE ASSESSEES CONTENDS THAT THEY HAVE KEP T BOTH QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DETAILS OF MATERIAL PU RCHASED BY IT AS IS EVIDENT FROM VARIOUS LEDGER ACCOUNTS RELATED TO CON STRUCTION MATERIAL THAT WERE FORMING PART OF THE SEIZED MATER IAL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. ALL THE EXPENSES RELA TING TO THE PROJECT INCLUDING MATERIAL PURCHASED WERE CHARGED TO PROJEC T/WORK-IN- PROGRESS AND DIRECTLY TAKEN TO THE BALANCE SHEET. I N OTHER WORDS, THE MATERIALS PURCHASED FOR THE PROJECT ARE ISSUED TO SITE IMMEDIATELY AFTER ITS PURCHASE AND TRANSFERRED TO P ROJECT IN PROGRESS FOR DETERMINING PROFIT AT THE TIME OF COMP LETION OF THE PROJECT. NO EXPENDITURE IS CHARGED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS THEY WERE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND THE RELEVANT CONSTRUCTI ON EXPENSES WERE CAPITALIZED. THE QUANTITY SO ISSUED TO THE SIT ES/PROJECTS IS RECORDED IN SEPARATE RECORDS MAINTAINED FOR EACH IT EM OF BUILDING MATERIAL USED THEREIN. THERE WAS THUS NO PRACTICAL NEED TO MAINTAIN A DETAILED QUALITY-WISE QUANTITATIVE REGIS TER BY THE APPELLANT MORE SO WHEN THE VALUATION ON COST BASIS COULD BE ACCURATELY MADE FROM THE LEDGERS. IT IS NEITHER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE HAVE BEEN OMISSION OR FAILURE TO ITA NO. 392/JP/2014 M/S. UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (REALTY) VS. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JAIPUR . 4 RECORD ANY PURCHASES OR DIRECT EXPENSES TO THE PROJ ECT IN PROCESS NOR EVEN A CASE THAT THE ASSESSEES INFLATED THE COS T OF SUCH STOCK WHICH IS BASICALLY CAPITALIZED COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE LEDGERS. THE ACCOUNTS ARE DULY AUDITED BY A QUALIFIED CHARTE RED ACCOUNTANT AS PER PAST ACCOUNTING PRACTICES, POLICIES AND REVE NUE RECOGNITION METHOD ON APPROVED METHOD I.E. PROJECT COMPLETION M ETHOD. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE SEIZED AND THE SAME WERE AVAI LABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSES CLAIM TO HAVE ALSO PRODUCED REQUISITE VOUCHERS AND RECORD AS REQUIRED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO APPE ARS TO HAVE CASUALLY STATED THAT AS PER AS-2 IT IS ESSENTIAL TH AT THE DETAILS OF BOTH QUALITY AS WELL AS QUANTITY OF DIFFERENT ITEMS OF STOCKS INCLUDING DETAILS OF DIRECT EXPENSES AND COSTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED METICULOUSLY. IN FACT, THE AS-2 NOTIFIED BY THE CBDT RELATES TO DISCLOSURE OF PRIOR PERIOD AND EXTRA ORD INARY ITEMS AND CHANGE OF ACCOUNTING POLICIES. THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAI NED BY THE ASSESSES CONFORM TO THE COMMERCIALLY ACCEPTED ACCOU NTING STANDARDS WHICH ENABLE DETERMINATION OF CORRECT PRO FITS OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS AS DONE IN PAST YEARS. THE FIND INGS REACHED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFICIENC IES AS POINTED OUT FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS AS WELL, VALUATION OF INVENT ORY, CHANGE OF METHOD OF ACCOUNTING TO % COMPLETION METHOD ARE NEI THER FACTUALLY CORRECT NOR GRAVE ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN THEM. RELIANCE PLACED ON PANDIT BROTHERS VS. CIT (SUPRA) SUPPORTS ASSESSEES PROPOSITION THAT MERELY BECAUSE STOCK REGISTER IS N OT MAINTAINED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ACCOUNTS BOOK MUST BE FALSE . MORE SO IN THESE CASES ARE ADOPTING PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD AND PROFITS WERE ASCERTAINABLE ONLY AT THE COMPLETION OF THE RE SPECTIVE PROJECT. BESIDES IT HAD ELIGIBILITY FOR DEDUCTION OF ALL ITS PROJECT PROFITS U/S 80IB. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE UNABLE TO INFER THAT ANY VALID AND PERSUASIVE REASONS EXISTED FOR ASSESSES TO FALS IFY THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THIS EXERCISE HAS NO BENEFITS RATHER IT P UTS THEM IN CONTROVERSIES WHICH ARE GLARING ENOUGH. BESIDES SUC H WIDESPREAD MISMANAGEMENT WILL YIELD SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIA L DURING THE SEARCH, SEIZURE AND SURVEY OPERATIONS. LD. AO HAS N OT RELIED ON ANY SPECIFIC MATERIAL IN THIS BEHALF; THE ISSUE OF MR. BHUTANI WILL BE DEALT HEREINAFTER. ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER RELIED ON T HE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF S.N. NAMASIVA YAM CHETTIAR VS. CIT, SUPRA HOLDING THAT INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE TO CONSIDER THE MATERIAL WHICH IS PLACED BEFORE THEM AND ONLY A FTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IN ANY CASE THE ABSENCE OF STOCK REGISTER C OUPLED WITH ITA NO. 392/JP/2014 M/S. UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (REALTY) VS. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JAIPUR . 5 OTHER MATERIAL, ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CORRECT PRO FITS AND GAINS COULD NOT BE DEDUCED THEN THEY WOULD BE JUSTIFIED I N APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF REJECTION OF BOOKS. VIEWING THE FACTS OF ASSESSES CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FINDINGS OUR FOREGOING OBSERV ATIONS ABOUT CORRECTNESS OF BOOKS BECOME VERY MATERIAL INASMUCH AS THERE IS NEITHER ANY GAIN NOR MOTIVE FOR ASSESSES TO INDULGI NG IN SUCH PRACTICES WHEN ALL THE PROFITS WERE DEDUCTIBLE U/S 80IB. BESIDES THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERE D TO COME TO A JUSTICIABLE CONCLUSION TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF REGUL ARLY AUDITED ACCOUNTS. A GENERALIZED OBSERVATION ABOUT THE NOT ORIOUS TRADE PRACTICES IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS CANNOT BE A REAS ON FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CA SE OF LALCHAND BHAGAT AMBICA RAM (SUPRA) AND HON'BLE DELHI HIGH CO URT 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 P REVAILING IN TRADE CIRCLES CANNOT BE RELIED FOR MAKING ADDITIONS. CONS EQUENTLY AND FINDING OF ON-MONEY TRANSACTIONS BASED ON ASSUMPT ION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR EXAMIN ATION OF BUYERS IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND JUSTIFICATION. THESE OBSER VATIONS, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE VALID REASONS FOR REJECTING TH E AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGULAR CO URSE OF ITS BUSINESS AS PER PAST PRACTICES AND ACCOUNTING POLIC IES. 39. APROPOS SUBSTITUTING THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FROM PROJECT COMPLETION TO % COMPLETION BY THE AUTHORIZE S BELOW IS BY OBSERVATIONS THAT ASSESSEES HAVE NOT FOLLOWED ACCO UNTING STANDARDS 9 & 7 WHICH TANTAMOUNT TO NOT FOLLOWING A CCOUNTING STANDARD-1 AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 145(2) OF TH E ACT. IT IS ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE APPELLANT WERE REGULARLY FOLLOWING PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND THE ASSESSMENTS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH WERE ALSO FRAMED BY ACC EPTING PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD. AS PER ICAI GUIDE LINES REAL EST ATE DEVELOPER HAS AN OPTION TO CHOOSE FROM PROJECT COMPLETION MET HOD OR THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD AS BOTH ARE RECOGNIZED METHODS FOR REVENUE RECOGNITION IN SUCH CASES. ONCE THE OPTION IS EXERCISED BY ASSSESSEE, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSESSING 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 REVENUE. IT IS THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE, CONSISTENT FOLLOWIN G OF METHOD AND ITA NO. 392/JP/2014 M/S. UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (REALTY) VS. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JAIPUR . 6 ITS EARLIER ADOPTION WHICH DECIDES THE ISSUE AND NO T THE SUITABILITY OR REVENUE. 40. WE HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED THAT IN ANY CASE AS SESSSEES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB AGAINST THEIR I NCOME, IN THIS EVENTUALITY, TAKE THIS METHOD OR THAT, THE RESULT I S NIL TAXABLE PROFITS AFTER DEDUCTION. THUS IN THESE CASES THE SU BSTITUTION OF METHOD TO % COMPLETION METHOD IS BASED ON SURMISES, UNWARRANTED FACTS, IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND A FRUITLESS EXERCISE. EXCEPT MAKING SOME ACADEMIC AND THEORETIC AL RHETORICS, THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT T HE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH SET ACCOUNTING GUIDELINES, PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145. HON' BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. V. SIKKA & ANOTHE R (1984) 149 ITR 73 (DEL.) HELD THAT IF THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING IS ACCEPTED IN FIRST YEAR AND REGULARLY FOLLOWED IN SUBSEQUENT YEA R 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 THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA UNDER AS-7. AS- 7 ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA, RECOGNIZES THE POSITION THAT IN THE CASE OF CONSTRU CTION CONTRACTS THE ASSESSEE CAN FOLLOW EITHER THE PROJECT COMPLETI ON METHOD OR THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD. NEITHER THE REVISED G UIDANCE NOTES 2012 ISSUED BY INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNT ANTS OF INDIA NOR THE EXPOSURE DRAFT FOR GUIDANCE NOTE ON RECOGNI TION OF REVENUE ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUN TS OF INDIA IN 2011 ARE MANDATORY OR OVERRIDE THE STATUTORY PROVIS IONS. LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO TAKEN CONTRADICTORY STAND; ON ONE H AND IT IS HELD THAT THERE CAN BE NO REVENUE RECOGNITION UNLESS 25% PROJECT IS COMPLETE, RIGHTLY SO AS NO BUILDER CAN EARN FROM PL INTH OR PILLARS ON OTHER HAND IT IS HELD THAT THE PROPERTY IN FLATS STANDS TRANSFERRED BY BOOKING AMOUNT. THIS CLEARLY IMPLIES COMPLETION OF SALE AND REVENUE GENERATION. WE MAY HASTEN TO ADD THAT THE S TUBBORN STAND OF AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS LEAD TO UNIMAGINABLE CONTR ADICTIONS AND ANOMALIES. WHEREAS THE ASSESSEES METHOD DOES NOT L EAD TO ANY SUCH EVENTUALITIES AS IT WAS REGULARLY FOLLOWED 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 N OT FOLLOWING AS-9 & 7 THE SAME TANTAMOUNT TO NOT FOLLOWING PRESC RIBED AS-1 ITA NO. 392/JP/2014 M/S. UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (REALTY) VS. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JAIPUR . 7 UNDER SECTION 145(2) OF THE ACT IS PROFOUNDLY MISPL ACED, UNNECESSARY AND UNCALLED FOR BESIDES BEING CONTRARY TO PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTANCY AND INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. THE SAME, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE TAKEN A VALID BASIS F OR CHANGE OF METHOD REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE APPELLANT. THUS WE UPHOLD THE METHOD OF REVENUE RECOGNITION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESS EES AS PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD. THE OTHER JUDICIAL PREC EDENTS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED IN ITAT ORDERS AS WELL AS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SUPPORT OUR VIEW. 41. APROPOS ANNEXURE A-2/51 AS WELL AS THE STATEMEN T OF SHRI NAVEEN BHUTANI RECORDED ON 28.01.2009 UNDER SE CTION 132(4) OF THE ACT REGARDING A PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM HIS LAP TOP; HE STATED THAT IT WAS IN RELATION TO UNIQUE DREAM BUILDERS ON LY AND NOT THE ASSESSEE ENTITIES. THIS PERSON WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE APPELLANTS AND AO HIMSELF ADMITS THAT THE PRINT OUT INVENTORIZED AS SEIZED ANNEXURE A-2/51 REVEALIN G NET REALIZATION OF RS. 17.91 CRORES AND A PROFIT OF RS. 5.17 CRORES REFLECTS ONLY THE ESTIMATES. THE SAID DOCUMENT DOE S NOT REVEAL THE ACTUAL STATE OF AFFAIRS OF THE PROJECTS DONE BY THE ASSESSEES. NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND AS A RESULT O F SEARCH ON HIM OR FROM EITHER SIDE OF SEPARATED GROUP TO SUPPORT T HAT FIGURES WRITTEN THEREIN FOR THE AREA CONSTRUCTED, SOLD OR T RANSFERRED NOR ABOUT THE NET REALIZATION OR PROFITS EARNED IN ANY SUCH PROJECTS. THE SAID EXCEL SHEET DATA WAS PREPARED FOR MARKETIN G OF UNIQUE BUILDERS PROJECTS 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 APPEL LANT WHICH COULD ENABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REJECT THE AC COUNTS MAINTAINED IN REGULAR COURSE. IN FACT, THIS DOCUMEN T AS SUCH DID NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE -APPELLANT. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW MADE SOME PROJECTIONS TO CON VERT THESE HYPOTHETICAL FIGURES INTO ASSESSEES BUSINESS OPERATIONS ON HYPOTHETICAL ASSUMPTIONS. THE BOOKING AGREEMENTS OF THESE FLATS WERE REACHED AT DIFFERENT TIMINGS AT DIFFERENT LOCA TIONS WITH DIFFERENT SPECIFICATIONS. THE APPELLANTS HAVE MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS IN THE SYNOPSIS ON THIS FACTUAL CIRCUMS TANCES, INCONSISTENCIES IN LAPTOP PROJECTIONS, IMPOSSIBILIT Y OF SUCH PROFITS IN REAL ESTATE TRADE AS EXTRAPOLATED BY DEPARTMENT AND EXPLAINED VARIATION IN RATES. THE EXPLANATION IS BONAFIDE AND REMAINS UNCONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. THE OBSERVATION AS W ELL AS FINDINGS REACHED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW CANNOT BE UPHELD AS TH EY LACK IN ITA NO. 392/JP/2014 M/S. UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (REALTY) VS. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JAIPUR . 8 CREDIBILITY BEING BASED ON IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATION S AND PURE CONJECTURES. LOOKING AT THE GAMUT OF INCONSISTENCIE S AND INFIRMITIES IN THE PROJECTIONS OF DEPARTMENT VIS A VIS LAPTOP F OUND FROM MR. BHUTANI, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE A REASON SUFFICIEN T TO ENDORSE THAT THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE UNRELIA BLE OR THEY WERE NOT VERIFIABLE. CONSEQUENTLY ASSESSES GROUND IN THIS BEHALF DESERVE TO BE ALLOWED. ON THESE FACTS THE ITAT JAIP UR IN SIMILAR GROUP CASES HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THESE ISSUES IN FA VOR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW. THUS THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH BY GIVING DETAILED OBSE RVATION HAS HELD THAT:- (I) THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS UPHELD (II) THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT IS REVERSED. THUS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE UPHE LD. (III) THE DATA RECOVERED FROM THE COMPUTER OF SHRI NAVEEN BHUTANI HAS BEEN HELD BY THE AO TO BE IN THE NATURE OF ESTIMATE AND HAS NO CONSEQUENCE BY ASSESSEE'S BOOKS SO AS TO REJECT THEM. (IV) REVENUE HAS RAISED GROUNDS ABOUT PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD BECAUSE THEY HAVE PREFERRED APP EAL BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AGAINST ITAT ORDER IN ONE OF THE GROUP CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (KRISHNA), IN EARLIER YEARS (V) DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY ITAT. 2.5 THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO CONCEDED THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AS EMANATING FROM ITAT ORDER (SUPRA). 2.6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESS EE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ITA NO. 392/JP/2014 M/S. UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (REALTY) VS. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JAIPUR . 9 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2008-09 (SUPRA) HAS GIV EN DETAILED FINDINGS AS TO UPHOLDING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE E, PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD, ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB AND OTHE RS ISSUES. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF COORDINATE BENC H (SUPRA), THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06 /11/20 15. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (R.P.TOLANI) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 06 /11/ 2015 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S. UNIQUE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (REALTY), JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT-THE DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2. , JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY ) @ CIT(A) 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.392/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR