K.S.JHAVERI,J. - (1.) In both these appeals common question of law and facts are involved hence they are decided by this common judgment.
(2.) By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby tribunal has dismissed the appeals of the department.
(3.) Counsel for the appellant has framed following substantial questions of law:- 3. 1 Appeal No.3/2018 "i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer by applying Percentage Completion Method, without appreciating that the actual receipts on sale of flats could be ascertained on the basis of sale/allotment agreements entered by the assessee and the assessee has contravened AS- 7 and AS-9, which tantamount to following AS-1 provided in Section 145(2) of the Act? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessing Officer rejected the accounts on the sole ground that the assessee has followed Accounting Standard-7 and AS-9 for recognition of revenue, though the AO had examined actual allotment agreement and had then reached the conclusion that revenue could be reliably recognized on the basis of Percentage Completion Method? iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal has erred in confirming deletion the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ai) on the ground that assessee has followed project completion method and expenses have been claimed ignoring the fact that said expenses were included in work-in-progress, to be claimed as revenue expenses subsequently?" 3.2 Appeal No.4/2018 "i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer by applying Percentage Completion Method, without appreciating that the actual receipts on sale of flats could be ascertained on the basis of sale/allotment agreements entered by the assessee and the assessee has contravened AS- 7 and AS-9, which tantamount to following AS-1 provided in Section 145(2) of the Act? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessing Officer rejected the accounts on the sole ground that the assessee has followed Accounting Standard-7 and AS-9 for recognition of revenue, though the AO had examined actual allotment agreement and had then reached the conclusion that revenue could be reliably recognized on the basis of Percentage Completion Method? iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal has erred in confirming deletion the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ai) and 40A(3) on the ground that assessee has followed project completion method and expenses have been claimed ignoring the fact that said expenses were included in work-in-progress, to be claimed as revenue expenses subsequently?";