TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1293
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are as under:- "1. That, the assessment order has been passed by NFAC and no designation of AO is mentioned in the assessment order which is illegal and unjustified. 2. That, the digital signature in the assessment order are not verified and it does not amount to signing of assessment order by AO. Hence, the whole assessment order deserves to be set aside. 3. That, the Ld. CIT Appeal is unjustified in holding the addition of Rs. 30,03,163.00 by applying Sec. 43CB of the Act without the considering the fact that same is not applicable to the project started prior to 01.04.2017. 4. That Sec 43CB is applicable only where there agreement exist between the land owner and developer whereas in the present case t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sold of Rs. 3,70,72,525/- and closing work in progress of Rs. 26,30,65,889/-. Accordingly, the profits from the business were shown at Rs. 8,01,898/- and after deducting interest from partners, business income were shown at Rs. 4,814/-. The ld. AO asked the assessee to explain whether it was following percentage completion method for Revenue recognition or not. However, the assessee submitted that section 43CB was not applicable in its case, as the sanction for construction was granted on 30.05.2013 and the section 43CB was introduced w.e.f. 1.04.2017. It was submitted that the assessee was regularly following the same method of accounting from year to year and there was no deviation in the same. It was submitted that it makes the sale when....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee, he was obliged to follow the same methodology. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why the net profit should not be estimated at 6% of WIP and worked out at Rs. 30,03,163/-. In response, the assessee once again submitted that section 43CB was not applicable because the project started on 30.05.2013. Furthermore, the assessee was both the owner of the land and developer of the property and was not working as a constructor. The assessee had submitted all details relating to transaction that took place in the F.Y. 2017-18 and the Act nowhere provided that the books of accounts should be maintained on the basis of an architect's certificate. Therefore, the books could not be rejected under section 145....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CB were applicable. He also held that in the absence of production of the books of accounts, the estimation of income by the ld. AO was justified and he accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this account. He also noted that the ld. AO had recorded the fact that no details had been furnished before him and therefore, he had estimated the income only after providing sufficient opportunities and he rejected the plea of the assessee, that the assessee had not been confronted with any query regarding production of books of accounts. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. The assessee is aggrieved with such orders rejecting its appeal, and has accordingly come before us. Sh. Sanjay Mishra, Advocate (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... alternative the assessee may be given may be given an opportunity to place its arguments before the ld. CIT(A) afresh. 5. On the other hand, Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR (hereinafter referred to as the ld. DR) arguing on behalf of the Department pointed out that the assessee had not been able to show why, despite the fact that the assessment pertained to a period after 1.04.2017, the profits of the assessee company should not be assessed under the percentage completion methods in accordance with the income computation and disclosure standards (ICDS) notified under sub section (2) of section 145. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed and the orders of the lower authorities be upheld. 6. We have duly c....