2018 (4) TMI 458

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... our consideration: "(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in deleting the addition on account of profit from Sai Sharan Project, without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has determined the correct profit without changing the method of accounting followed by the Assessee? (c) Whether,on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in deleting the disallowance of loss of Rs. 5,20,638/under 'Sai Sharan' Project which wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y estimating a certain percentage of work in progress. Thus, assessee has failed to disclose the true facts relevant to the assessment. Based on the facts that have emerged the assessee ought to have included the entire amount from the said project in Assessment Year 2008-09. But the assessee has shown the project as incomplete and declared a certain percentage of WIP as income. The WIP as on 31/3/2008 is Rs. 17,52,78,836/and the advances received from flat purchasers as on 31/3/2008 are Rs. 27,24,40,847/. Thus, the income of Rs. 9,7162,011/should have been offered by the assessee in A.Y. 2008-09. Thus, I have reason to believe that income of Rs. 9,71,62,011/has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961." ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Assessment Year 201011 that being the terminal year. Therefore, the impugned order concluded that the entire basis of the reasons in support of the reopening notice dated 27th March, 2012 falls to the ground as it proceeded on the basis that the terminal year for the project 'Sai Swar' was Assessment Year 2008-09. The other issue raised by the Respondent-Assessee in its appeal were not dealt with as the Appeal itself was being allowed on the ground that the reopening notice is without jurisdiction. (viii) We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal places reliance upon the finding of fact rendered by its Coordinate Bench in its order dated 2nd August, 2013 in respect of Respondent-Assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10. Th....