ITAT upholds Project Completion Method over Percentage Completion Method, allows Section 80IB deduction despite AO's book rejection

The ITAT Jaipur upheld the assessee's Project Completion Method of accounting against the AO's attempt to substitute it with Percentage Completion Method. The tribunal rejected the AO's rejection of books of accounts, finding no valid basis for questioning regularly audited accounts when the assessee was eligible for complete deduction under Section 80IB. The tribunal held that loose papers found from a third party lacked evidentiary value and could not justify rejecting the accounts. The DVO reference under Section 142A was deemed invalid as it was made by ADIT rather than the AO. The tribunal allowed Section 80IB deduction, resulting in nil taxable profits for the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of books of accounts under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Substitution of "Project Completion Method" with "Percentage Completion Method."
3. Treatment of flat booking advances as income.
4. Use of third-party laptop contents for making additions.
5. Reference of under-construction projects to DVO under section 142A.
6. Allowance of deduction under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
7. Admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Books of Accounts:
The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the books of accounts by invoking section 145(3) due to the alleged non-maintenance of a detailed qualitative and quantitative stock register and inability to verify certain vouchers. However, it was contended that all expenses were charged to the project/work-in-progress and directly taken to the balance sheet. The Tribunal found that the accounts maintained by the assessee conformed to commercially accepted accounting standards, and no specific defects were pointed out. The Tribunal referenced several judicial precedents, including *Pandit Brothers vs. CIT* and *S.N. Namasivayam Chettiar vs. CIT*, supporting the assessee's contention that mere non-maintenance of a stock register cannot justify the rejection of books.

2. Substitution of Accounting Method:
The AO substituted the "Project Completion Method" with the "Percentage Completion Method," arguing that the former did not present a true picture of profits. The Tribunal noted that both methods are recognized by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and that the choice of method lies with the assessee. The Tribunal cited *CIT vs. Smt. V. Sikka & Another* and *CIT vs. Bilahari Investment Pvt. Ltd.*, holding that the AO cannot change the method of accounting regularly followed by the assessee without just cause. The Tribunal upheld the "Project Completion Method."

3. Treatment of Flat Booking Advances:
The AO treated flat booking advances as income, arguing that the ownership of property gets transferred on receipt of booking itself. The Tribunal found this contrary to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the terms of the advance booking agreement, which specified that no right, title, or interest is conferred upon the buyer until the execution of the sale deed. Thus, the Tribunal rejected the AO's treatment of advances as income.

4. Use of Third-Party Laptop Contents:
The AO made additions based on contents from the laptop of a third party, Mr. Navin Bhutani. The Tribunal noted that the printouts from the laptop were projections and not actual transactions. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO did not provide the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Bhutani and relied on *CIT V/s S.M.S. Investment Corporation (P) Ltd.* and other cases, concluding that the projections could not be used to justify additions.

5. Reference to DVO Under Section 142A:
The AO referred under-construction projects to the DVO for valuation under section 142A. The Tribunal found this reference invalid, as no assessment or reassessment proceedings were pending before the ADIT (Inv.)-1, Jaipur, who made the reference. The Tribunal cited *CIT Vs. Umiya Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.* and *ME & Mummy Hospital Vs. ACIT*, holding that the reference was beyond the jurisdiction of the ADIT and thus void.

6. Allowance of Deduction Under Section 80IB:
The AO did not allow the deduction under section 80IB, as it was not claimed in the original return. The Tribunal, however, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction, noting that the appellate authorities have the power to entertain new claims. The Tribunal referenced *Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. DCIT* and *CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.*, emphasizing that the appellate authorities can adjudicate on new claims arising from the facts of the case.

7. Admission of Additional Evidence Under Rule 46A:
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A, as it was necessary for the just adjudication of the case. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction under section 80IB based on the additional evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, upholding the "Project Completion Method," rejecting the books of accounts under section 145(3), and the invalid reference to the DVO under section 142A. It also allowed the deduction under section 80IB and dismissed the revenue's grounds as inconsequential and academic.

---