HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 214 / 2016 Pr Commissioner Of IT Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Rama Ajit Builders & Developers ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 248 / 2016 Pr Commissioner Of IT Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Unique Builders & Developers ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 268 / 2016 Pr Commissioner Of IT Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Rama Ajit Builders & Developers ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.D. Mathur for Mr. R.B. Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar with Mr. Prakhul Khurana & Ms. Archana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 19/05/2017 (2 of 4) In all these appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, they are decided by this common judgment. 1. By way of these appeals, appellant has assailed judgment and order of Tribunal whereby Tribunal has dismissed appeal of department. 2. This Court while admitting matters framed following questions of law:- i) Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law ITAT as well as CIT(A) were justified law in holding that Assessing Officer has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 56275218/- even though Assessing Officer s Action of determining income based on percentage completion method as per AS-7 after invoking provisions of section 145(3) of IT Act has been approved. In DBITA No.248/2016 i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law ITAT has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 28782752/- made by Assessing Officer by application of section 145(3) of Act and estimation of profits when assessee is not maintainable quantitative and qualitative stock registers and seized documents like A-2/51 found from laptop of Sh. Navin Bhutani reflect of on money received. ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law ITAT has erred in rejecting application of percentage completion method adopted by Assessing Officer, when this rejection means acceptance of loss returns of assessee engaged in construction and sale of residential/commercial project. iii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law ITAT was justified in ignoring facts that two brothers either themselves or through their families were actively engaged jointly in business of sister concerns of assessee and thus acceptance of on money and specific seized documents cannot be ignored for intervention. iv) Whether on facts in circumstances of (3 of 4) case and in law ITAT has erred in ignoring fact that document seized from Shri Navin Bhutani (A- 2/51), and from Sh. Vibhishek Pal Singh (Partner) (A- 2/19) indicated on money received. In DBITA No. 268/2016 i) Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that Assessing officer as well as CIT(A) have erred in rejecting books of accounts of assessee under Section 145(3) of Act and thereby reversing findings given by Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) ignoring undisputed facts that assessee has failed to maintain quantitative and qualitative stock registers and vouch expenses incurred by it and on money received by it has not been disclosed.? ii) Whether Tribunal was justified in rejecting application of percentage completion method by AO, when this rejection means acceptance of loss returns of assessee engaged in construction and sale of residential/commercial projects.? iii) Whether Tribunal was justified in ignoring fact that two brothers who are partners and actively engaged jointly in business of assessee firm and thus acceptance of on money can be ignored for intervention.? 3. Now issue is squarely covered by decision taken today in DBITA No. 23/2013 (CIT Central Jaipur vs. M/s Unique Builders & Developers) decided on 19/5/2017, wherein it has been held as under:- In view of observations made in para 12, 12.1 onwards and 13, by Tribunal, we are of opinion that Tribunal while considering case has gone in detail and after considering facts on record has given finding. In our considered opinion Tribunal being fact finding authority, it will not be appropriate for us to re appreciate evidence which has already been appreciated by Tribunal. Therefore, in view of decision of this Court and Gujarat High Court, referred to by Mr. Jhanwar, first issue is answered in favour of assessee. In view of decision of Supreme Court referred hereinabove, (4 of 4) second issue is also required to be answered in favour of assessee. In view of decision of Gujarat High Court in case of S.A. Builders (supra), issue No.(iii) is answered in favour of assessee and against department. 4. In that view of matter, issues are answered in favour of assessee against department. 5. All appeals stand dismissed. (VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. A.Sharma/56, 59 & 63 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur v. Rama Ajit Builders & Developer