Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pr. Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. ... on 14 September, 2023
Bench: Augustine George Masih, Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:29700-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 12/2019
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
M/s Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd., 54-55 Rajdeep, New
Fatehpura, Udaipur.
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 11/2019
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
M/s Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd., 54-55 Rajdeep, New
Fatehpura, Udaipur.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharath Ranka, through V.C.
Mr. Harshvardhan Singh.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
14/09/2023
(Oral)
By this order, we propose to dispose of both the appeals,
which have been preferred by the Revenue relating to the same
assessee and the questions of law involved therein are identical.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has clarified that both the
questions in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.11/2019 would be the
subject-matter of D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.12/2019 as Question
[2023:RJ-JD:29700-DB] (2 of 3) [ITA-12/2019]
No.1 & 3, which may be decided against the appellant-Revenue
and in favour of the assessee, but Question No.2 in D.B. Income
Tax Appeal No.12/2019 is different and the same may be decided
against the assessee and in favour of the appellant-Revenue.
3. For the purpose of convenience, three substantial questions
of law, which have been framed by the appellant in Income Tax
Appeal No.12/2019 are reproduced as follows:
"1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case
the ld. ITAT was justified in law in confirming the decision
of the CIT(A) of deleting the addition of Rs.6,22,52,685/-
made by the AO by applying percentage of completion
method which is prescribed under Accounting Standards
AS-7 & AS-9 after rejecting the method of accounting
adopted by the assessee?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case
the decision of the ld. ITAT does not suffer from
perversity of law in confirming the decision of the CIT(A)
of deleting the disallowance made by the AO u/s 40(a)
(ia) of the Income Tax which is contrary to the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam Gas
Services Vs CIT reported at 394 ITR 300 SC and which
was even conceded by the Assessee before ITAT?
3. Whether on the facts of and circumstances of the
case the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in directing the
AO to compute income arising from suppression of sales
receipt by applying project completion method on?"
4. Questions No.1 & 3 herein are answered against the
appellant in the light of the judgment of this Court in CIT Central
Jaipur Vs. Unique Builders and Developers and other
connected matters [2017 (5) TMI 1505 (Rajasthan High
Court)]. It has been brought to our notice that the SLP preferred
against the said judgment has been dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 31.07.2023 i.e. Special Leave
to Appeal (C) No.13072/2018 - Commissioner of Income
Tax II Jaipur Vs. M/s. Rama Ajit Builders & Developers.
[2023:RJ-JD:29700-DB] (3 of 3) [ITA-12/2019]
5. In the light of above, the D.B. Income Tax Appeal
No.11/2019 stands dismissed.
6. As far as Question of Law No.2 is concerned, the same is
answered in favour of the appellant-Revenue and against the
assessee, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Shree Choudahry Transport Company Vs.
Income Tax Officer [2020 (8) TMI 23 (Supreme Court)].
7. The D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.12/2019 stands partly
allowed in above terms.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ
147-a.asopa/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
