K.S.JHAVERI,J. - (1.) In all these appeals, identical questions of law and facts are involved and as they relate to the same assessee, they were heard together and decided finally by this common judgment.
(2.) In these appeals, the Department has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the Department.
(3.) This court while admitting the appeals framed the following substantial questions of law:- 3. 1 ITA NO. 23/2013, 18/2013, 20/2013, 22/2013, 26/2013, 36/2013, 37/2013 "(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessing Officer as well as CIT (A) have erred in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee under section 145(3) of the Act and thereby reversing the findings given by the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A), ignoring the undisputed fact that the assessee has failed to maintain quantitative and qualitative stock registers and vouch the expenses incurred by it and 'on-money' received by it has been disclosed. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting application of 'Percentage completion method' adopted by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A)(C), Jaipur, in contravention of the Accounting Standard- 7 and Accounting Standard-9 issued by the ICAI, resulting in acceptance of loss return of the assessee engaged in construction and sale of residential/commercial projects. (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring that the two brothers were partners either themselves or through their sons and their families and were actively engaged in the business of the assessee firm and thus acceptance of 'on-money' and specific seized documents cannot be ignored for intervention." 3.2 ITA No. 19/2013, 21/2013, 29/2013, 32/2013, 35/2013, "(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessing Officer as well as CIT (A) have erred in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee under section 145(3) of the Act and thereby reversing the findings given by the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A), ignoring the undisputed fact that the assessee has failed to maintain quantitative and qualitative stock registers and vouch the expenses incurred by it and 'on-money' received by it has been disclosed. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting application of percentage completion method adopted by the AO, when this rejection means acceptance of loss returns of the assessee engaged in construction and sale of residential/commercial projects in contravention of Accounting Standard-7 and Accounting Standard-9 issued by ICAI? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring that the two brothers were partners either themselves or through their sons and their families and were actively engaged in the business of the assessee firm and thus acceptance of 'on-money' and specific seized documents cannot be ignored for intervention." 3.3 ITA NO.25/2013, 30/2013, 31/2013, "(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessing Officer as well as CIT (A) have erred in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee under section 145(3) of the Act and thereby reversing the findings given by the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A), ignoring the undisputed fact that the assessee has failed to maintain quantitative and qualitative stock registers and vouch the expenses incurred by it and 'on-money' received by it has been disclosed. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting application of 'Percentage completion method' by the AO, When this rejection means acceptance of loss returns of the assessee engaged in construction and sale of residential/commercial projects? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring that the two brothers were partners either themselves or through their sons and their families and were actively engaged in the business of the assessee firm and thus acceptance of 'on-money' and specific seized documents cannot be ignored for intervention." 3.4 ITA No. 197/2016, 202/2016, 207/2016, "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified law in rejecting the books of accounts of assessee under Section 145(3) of the IT Act, and thereby reversing the findings given by the Assessing Officer ignoring the undisputed facts that the assessee failed to maintain quantities and qualitative stock registers and vouch the expenses incurred by its and on money received by it has been disclosed. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified law in rejecting the application of percentage completion method adopted by the Assessing Officer, when this rejection means acceptance of loss returns of the assessee engaged in construction and sale of residential/commercial projects in contravention of Accounting Standard-7 and Accounting Standard-9 issued by ICAI. 3.5 ITA 250/2016, 254/2016, "(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified rejecting the revenue's appeal without any application of mind and thereby holding that the Assessing Officer has erred in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee under Section 145(3) of the Act and reversing the findings ignoring the undisputed facts that the assessee has failed to maintain quantitative and qualitative stock registers and vouch the expenses incurred by it and 'on-money' received by it has been disclosed. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the percentage completion Method applied by Assessing Officer was unjustified and the 'Project Completion Method' adopted by the assessee was proper, ignoring that the said method of assessee for computation of income was in contravention of Accounting Standards 7 (Construction Contracts) and 9 (Revenue Recognition) issued by ICAI?" 3.6 ITA No. 295/2016 "(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the revenue's appeal without any application of mind and thereby holding that the Assessing Officer has erred in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee under Section 145(3) of the Act and reversing the findings, ignoring the undisputed facts that the assessee has failed to maintain quantitative and qualitative stock registers and vouch the expenses incurred by it and 'on money' received by it has been disclosed? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the entire addition of Rs. 5,31,79,520/-, made by the Assessing Officer on account of rejection of books of accounts and holding that the 'Percentage Completion Method' applied by Assessing Officer was unjustified and the 'Percentage Completion Method' adopted by the assessee was proper, ignoring that the said method of assessee for computation of income was in contravention of Accounting Standards 7 (Construction Contracts) and 9 (Revenue Recognition) issued by ICAI? 3.7 ITA NO. 133/2017 "(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the revenue's appeal without any application of mind and thereby holding that the Assessing Officer has erred in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee under Section 145(3) of the Act and reversing the findings, ignoring the undisputed facts that the assessee has failed to maintain quantitative and qualitative stock registers and vouch the expenses incurred by it and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,06,04,676/-? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the 'Percentage Completion Method' applied by Assessing Officer was unjustified and the 'Percentage Completion Method' adopted by the assessee was proper, ignoring that the said method of assessee for computation of income was in contravention of Accounting Standards 7 (Construction Contracts) and 9 (Revenue Recognition) issued by ICAI?;