ITO, New Delhi V. M/s K. Sahni Bros. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 782/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 78220114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 31-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAMKAUNJM A
• Assessee Lawyers: SSH SALIL AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Business income
• Section: 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI. PRAMOD KUMAR ITA NO. 782/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. K. SAHNI BROS. PVT. LTD., WARD 5(1), 656 GANDHI CLOTH MARKET, NEW DELHI. CHANDNI CHOWK, NEW DELHI. (PAN: AAACK0291L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SHRI P. DAMKAUNJM A, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY: S/SH. SALI L AGGARWAL & SHAILESH GUPTA, CA DATE OF HEARING : 29.01.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31:03.2015 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) VIII, NEW DELHI DATED 9.02.10 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS ERRON EOUS & CONTRARY TO FACTS & LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,10,94,646 MADE BY THE A.O. BY APPLYING PERCENT AGE OF COMPLETION METHOD. 2 2.1 THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IGNORED THE FINDING RE CORDED BY THE A.O. AND THE FACT FOLLOWING AS-7(ACCOUNTING STANDAR D) IS MANDATORY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,46,25,071 MADE BY THE A.O. BEING THE UNACCOUNT ED SALES PROCEEDS RECEIVED IN CASH. 3.1 THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IGNORED THE FINDINGS R ECORDED BY A.O. AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.5 0C ARE NEITHER APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE NOR HAS BEEN INV OKED BY THE A.O. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO ADD, TO ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF T HE HEARING. 3. THE FACTS AS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER / BUILDER, TRADING IN CLOTH ITEMS AND ALSO RUNNING A MULTIPLEX BY THE NAME OF M4U AT GHAZIABAD. THE ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF A COMMERCIAL PLOT AT GHAZIABAD HAVING ACQUIRED THE SAME FROM GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN 1981 A ND THE CONSTRUCTION OF OFFICE-CUM-RESIDENTIAL FLATS AND MULTIPLEX CINEM A HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS PLOT FROM 1987 ONWARDS AND THE OFF ICE / RESIDENTIAL FLATS ARE SOLD AS AND WHEN THE SAME IS READY AND THE CONSTRUC TION IS STILL UNDER PROGRESS. THE ASSESSEE IS OCCUPYING A PART OF THIS COMPLEX FOR RUNNING ITS MULTIPLEX BUSINESS AND THE OTHER PARTS OF THIS COMP LEX HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED 3 AND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO VARIOUS PARTIES AND REV ENUE IS RECOGNISED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY IN THE YEAR WHEN POSSESSION IS HANDED OVER AND THE SALE DEED OF THE FLAT SOLD IS REGISTERED. THE BALANCE AMOUNT SPENT ON CONSTRUCTION IS SHOWN AS STOCK IN TRADE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES SEE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THE SAME METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OF INCOME CONSISTENTLY AN D THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN ALL THE PRECEEDING AND SUCCEEDING YEARS . DURING THE INSTANT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS RECOGNISED REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF S ALES OF REAL ESTATE AT RS.1,26,44,200/- AGAINST TOTAL AREA SOLD OF 7987.11 SQ. FT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER, WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ACTUAL SALE RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS AND FOUND THA T THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WAS HIGHER AND ACCORDINGL Y HE MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE REPORT OF THE D.V.O. WAS NOT RECE IVED TILL THE CONCLUSION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSES SING OFFICER ADOPTED THE CIRCLE RATE FIXED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES AND A DOPTED THE SAME AS THE ACTUAL SALE PRICE OF THE ENTIRE AREA SOLD AND ON TH IS ACCOUNT MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,46,25,071/- AS UNDISCLOSED SALES RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN CASH OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE A.O. WAS FURTHE R OF THE VIEW THAT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OF INCOME ADOPTED BY THE ASSES SEE NAMELY TO ACCOUNT FOR SALES IN THE YEAR WHEN POSSESSION WAS HANDED OV ER AND REGISTERED SALE 4 DEED WAS EXECUTED, WAS NOT THE CORRECT METHOD AND T HAT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE ADOPTED THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD AN D ACCORDING TO THE PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION METHOD THE A.O. COMPUTED T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING THE CIRCLE RATE FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE ON THE AREA WHICH WAS NOT SOLD DURING THE YEAR BUT ONLY ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED AND HE COMPUTED SUCH INCOME AT RS.7,10,94,646/- AND MADE A DDITION THEREOF TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO VALID BASIS FOR THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE CIRCLE RATE AS FIXED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY A S THE SALE PRICE OF THE ASSESSEE AS IT WAS NOT A CASE OF COMPUTATION OF CAP ITAL GAINS BUT ONLY BUSINESS INCOME . IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT TH ERE WAS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ANY SALES PROCEEDS / CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE T HE AMOUNT DECLARED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS AND ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE PUR CHASERS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS REGARDS THE PERCENTAGE COMPL ETION METHOD, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME WAS NOT NOT IFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVT. U/S 145(2) OF THE ACT, AND THEREFORE THERE WA S NO VALID BASIS TO SAY THAT THE SAME WAS MANDATORY ON THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPUTAT ION OF ITS INCOME. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OF INCOME FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT YEAR WAS CONSISTENTLY F OLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN 5 ALL THE EARLIER YEARS AS WELL AS SUCCEEDING YEARS A ND THE SAME METHOD STOOD DULY ACCEPTED IN ALL THE PRECEEDING AND SUCCEEDING YEARS AND THEREFORE ALSO THERE WAS NO VALID BASIS TO CHANGE THE METHOD ONLY DURING THE INSTANT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT (APPE ALS) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE METHOD OF ACCOUN TING OF INCOME CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) VIDE H IS ORDER DATED 9.12.10 HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HA S DELETED BOTH THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1,46,25,071/- AS WELL AS RS.7,10,94 ,646/- BY HOLDING THAT NEITHER THE A.O. WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING THE SALE S CONSIDERATION ON THE BASIS OF CIRCLE RATE PRESCRIBED FOR CHARGING OF STAMP DUT Y NOR WAS HE JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING THE TAXABILITY OF TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO OFFICE / RESIDENTIAL FLATS AGAINST WHICH ONLY ADVANCES HAD BEEN RECEIVED DURIN G THE YEAR AND ACTUAL SALE HAD NOT BEEN MADE. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND, THE LEARNED CIT(DR) HA S BASICALLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, DISCUSSED ABOVE. HE CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.1,46,25,071/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT 6 ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDING AND SELLING OF PROPERTY. IT WAS THE CONTE NTION OF THE LEARNED D.R. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADD ITION OF RS.1,46,25,071/- AS IT WAS NOT IMAGINARY BUT BASED ON THE RELEVANT C IRCLE RATE FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES FIXED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT THE SALE RATES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED WERE FOUND TO BE ON A MUCH LOWER SIDE EVEN THOUGH STAMP DUTY WAS PAID ACCORDING TO THE CI RCLE RATE. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED CIT(DR), THE A.O. WAS THUS JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE CIRCLE RATE FIXED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE AS THE ACTUAL SALES PR ICE OF THE ENTIRE AREA SOLD AND IN TREATING THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE RECEIVED IN CASH OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE LEARNED CIT (DR) FURTHER REITERATED THE FINDING OF THE A.O. TO CONTEND THAT THE ADDITIO N OF RS.7,10,94,646/- WAS ALSO CORRECTLY MADE BY THE A.O. AS PERCENTAGE OF CO MPLETION METHOD WAS REQUIRED TO BE MANDATORILY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT SINCE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED AS ADVANCES, THER EFORE THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE APPLIED THE PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION METHOD AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.7,10,94,646/- OUGHT TO BE UPHEL D. 6. THE LEARNED A.R. APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THERE WAS NO VALID BASIS FOR THE REV ENUE TO CONTEND THAT AS-7 ISSUED BY ICAI WAS REQUIRED TO BE MANDATORILY FOLLO WED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR 7 COMPUTING ITS TAXABLE INCOME. IT WAS ARGUED BY HIM THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR ON WHOM AS-7 IS APPLI CABLE NOR SUCH METHOD VIZ. PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION METHOD IS NOTIFIED UN DER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 145(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT ON THE ASSESSEE TO FOLLOW THE PERCENTAG E OF COMPLETION METHOD AS AGAINST THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OF INCOME CONSI STENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE EARLIER YEARS AS WELL AS SUCCEE DING YEARS, NAMELY TO ACCOUNT FOR THE SALES IN THE YEAR WHEN POSSESSION W AS HANDED OVER AND REGISTERED SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE BUYER. THE LEARNED A.R. FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SUCH METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ST OOD DULY ACCEPTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE EARLIER YEARS AND S UCCEEDING YEARS WHEN ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED A.R. FILED THE COPIES OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S 143(3) F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998- 99, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-1 1 AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WHEN SAME METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWE D BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. IT WAS CONTENDED BY HIM THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAD CORRECTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ARBITRARILY APPLYING THE PERCENTAGE OF C OMPLETION METHOD AS AGAINST THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING CONSISTENTLY APPLI ED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED A.R. FURTHER RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL 8 DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANISH BUIL DWELL PRIVATE LTD. IN ITA NO. 928/2911 DATED 15.11.2011 TO CONTEND THAT T HERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE A.O. TO ADOPT THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD FOR ONE YEAR (THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL) ON SELE CTIVE BASIS WHEN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OF INCOME ON THE BASIS OF HAND ING OVER OF POSSESSION AND REGISTERED SALE DEED STOOD ACCEPTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE EARLIER AND SUCCEEDING YEARS. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE ORDER OF DELHI ITAT IN THE CASE OF MALIBU ESTATES PRIVATE LTD. (ITA NO. 4085/DEL/2009) AS ALSO THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF SIDDHARTHA TRADE LINKS PRIVATE LTD. REPORTED IN 206 TAXMAN 92 IN SUP PORT OF HIS CONTENTION. THE LEARNED A.R. FURTHER ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO M ATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ANY SALES CONS IDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGISTER ED SALE DEEDS AND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE SALES PROCEEDS WITHOUT DIS CHARGING THE ONUS THAT LAY UPON HIM TO PROVE THAT ANY AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE TH E DECLARED AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH AS SALES PROCEEDS. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 50C ALSO WERE NOT APPLICABLE AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS OF BUILDING AND SELLING OF PROPERTIES AND HAD NOT EARNED ANY INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS. THE 9 LEARNED AR ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DISCOVERY HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. 356 IT R 159 (DEL.) IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT SALE PRICE OF A PROPERTY BY A DEALER THEREOF CANNOT BE ENHANCED ONLY ON SUSPICION AND ALSO THAT THE PROVIS IONS OF SEC. 50C OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF A BUILDER. T HE LEARNED A.R. THUS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS GIVEN A FIND ING THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHARGING THE STAMP DUTY CANNOT B E TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR ASSESSING THE BUSINESS INCOME IN RELATION TO THE AREA SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE A.O. WAS NOT JUST IFIED IN ADOPTING THE CIRCLE RATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTIMATING THE INCOME. EVE N BEFORE US, THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ANY SUCH MATERIAL ON REC ORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY REC EIVED ANY AMOUNT OF SALES PROCEEDS OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT DECLARED BY IT I N THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS AND ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS.1,46,25,071/-. THIS VIEW OF OURS IS ALSO IN CON FORMITY WITH THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY THE LEAR NED AR IN THE CASE OF 10 CIT VS. DISCOVERY HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. IN 356 ITR 159 (DEL.). THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE IS UPHELD AND THE RE VENUES APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN RELATION TO THE ADDITION OF RS.7,10,94,646/ -, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED THE SAME METHOD OF ACCOUN TING OF INCOME IN ALL THE EARLIER YEARS AS WELL AS THE SUCCEEDING YEARS, HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THUS THE FACTS REMAINS THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS ALWAYS BEEN ACCOUNTING FOR THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE PORTIONS SO LD BY IT AS INCOME IN THE YEAR WHEN THE POSSESSION IS GIVEN AND THE REGISTERE D SALE DEEDS ARE EXECUTED. THIS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OF INCOME STANDS ACCEPTED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 143(3) IN THE EARLIER AS WELL AS SUCCE EDING YEARS. ON THESE FACTS THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING THE PERCENTAG E COMPLETION METHOD FOR ONE YEAR (THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL) ONLY ON SELECTIVE BASIS. INFACT THIS WILL DISTORT COMPUTATION OF THE TRUE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER SAME INCOME WILL BE ASSESSED AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR WHEN SALES HAVE BEEN DECLARED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEA RS AND ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WHICH IS NOT TENA BLE IN LAW. IT IS FURTHER 11 SEEN THAT PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD AS SOUGHT T O BE APPLIED BY THE A.O. FOR COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY NOT ACC EPTING THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OF INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS A LSO NOT PRESCRIBED U/S 145/145A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE ALSO THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INSIST T HAT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE APPLIED ONLY PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD. FO R THIS PROPOSITION WE DERIVE FURTHER SUPPORT FROM THE ORDERS OF DELHI BEN CH OF ITAT IN THE CASES OF SABH INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE G BENCH A T DELHI. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN THE CASE OF THE ABOVE COMPANY FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-07 AND 2007-08 IN ITA NO. 4572/DEL/ 2009 AND 2813/DEL/ 201 0 THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER AND NOT A CONS TRUCTION CONTRACTOR, AS- 7 WAS NOT APPLICABLE. EVEN IN THE CASE OF SABH INF RASTRUCTURE LIMITED (SUPRA) THE ASSESSEE RECOGNISED REVENUE AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED THROUGH WHICH SIGNIFICANT RISKS AND REWARDS OF OWNE R OF THE PROPERTY WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE BUYER AND THE SAME WAS STATED TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AS-9 ISSUED BY ICAI AND THAT THE ADVANCE RECEIVED F ROM BUYERS OF THE FLATS WAS SHOWN AS ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS. THE ITAT IN THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN ACCEPTED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND PLACED RELIANCE FOR THIS PROPOSITION ON THE JUDGEMENT OF 12 HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MA NISH BUILDWELL PRIVATE LTD. IN ITA NO. 928/2011 DATED 15.11.2011. THIS OR DER OF THE ITAT WAS FOLLOWED BY IT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009- 10 ALSO AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AGAI NST THE ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10 WAS ALSO DISMIS SED VIDE ORDER OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DATED 7 TH JANUARY 2015 IN ITA NO. 111 AND 113 OF 2014 WHEREIN THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANISH BUILDWELL PRIVATE LTD. AS WELL AS THE JU DGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BELAHARI INVESTMENTS P RIVATE LTD. (299 ITR 1) WERE RELIED ON TO HOLD THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD WOULD RESULT IN DEFERMENT OF TAXES WHICH ARE TO BE ASSESSED ANNUALLY AND THAT THE SAME WAS AN ESTABLISHED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. THUS THE ORDERS OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SABH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LD. HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH COURT ALSO. ON T HESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN IN THE CASE OF THIS ASSESSEE NO INFIRMITY IS FOUND IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) DELETING THE ADD ITION OF RS.7,10,94,646/- AS THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ASSESSING OFF ICE TO DISCARD THE CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING SELECTIV ELY ONLY FOR ONE YEAR TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THIS HAS INFACT RESULT ED IN ASSESSMENT OF SAME INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TWICE, WHICH IS NOT TENABLE IN LAW. 13 THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE IS UPHELD AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 .03.2015 SD/- SD/- ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( I.C. SUDHIR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 31 /03/2015 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 14 DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON COMPUTER 16.03.2015 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 16.03.2015 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 27.03.20 15 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 31.03.2015 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 31.03.2015 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 31.03.2015 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.