Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2008 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (2) TMI 458 - ITAT DELHI-EAppellate Tribunal Jurisdiction u/s 254 - Entitlement for the benefit of section 80-IB(10) - profits derived from residential housing project - Amendment in the provisions of section 80-IB(10) extending the period for completion of eligible projects was made w.e.f. 1-4-2001 apparently because as per the pre-amended provisions, such period was prescribed up to 31-3-2001 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, what the ld. DR has sought to raise for the first time before the Tribunal is an alternative plea and not the additional plea and since the same cannot be said to change altogether the complexion of the case, we are of the view that he can be allowed to raise the same for the-first time before the Tribunal especially when the same involves legal issue which is based on the relevant provisions of law. It is well-settled that if a particular disallowance made on one basis by the Assessing Officer which is a subject-matter of appeal can be sustained on the basis of other provisions not invoked by him, the Tribunal can invoke the said provisions to sustain the said disallowance. It is no doubt true that the Tribunal's jurisdiction in an appeal before it is restricted only to passing orders on the subject-matter of the appeal. However, the words 'as it thinks fit' in section 254(1) even then will have to observe the prohibitions of the Income-tax Act and do not mean that the Tribunal can think 'fit' to disregard the clear mandates of the Statute. We, therefore, overrule the objection raised by the ld. Counsel for the assessee for entertaining the new plea sought to be raised by the ld. DR and proceed to consider and decide the same on merits now. Entitlement for the benefit of section 80-IB(10) - It is pertinent to note here that the period of commencement of the said projects in order to become eligible for benefits of section 80-IB(10) was also simultaneously specified as up to 31-3-2001 as against the period earlier prescribed as on or after 1-10-1998 which clearly means that the intention of the Legislature was to give the benefit of extended period of completion to all the projects which had already commenced on or after 1-10-1998. In this backdrop, if the interpretation to the said amendments as sought to be given by the ld. DR is accepted, the housing project commenced on or after 1-10-1998 but before 31-3-2001 and completed after 31-3-2001 would not be eligible for the benefits of section 80-IB especially in respect of profits derived from the said projects during the previous year relevant to assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 which is not certainly in consonance with the legislative intention. It is a well-settled canon of construction that in construing the provisions of beneficial legislation, the Court should adopt the construction, which advances, fulfils and furthers the object of the Act rather than the one, which would defeat the same and render the benefit illusory. It is also equally well-settled that, without doing violence to the language used, a beneficial provision shall receive fair, liberal and progressive construction so that its true objects might be promoted. In the case of Gurucharan Singh v. Kamla Singh [1975 (9) TMI 183 - SUPREME COURT], Hon'ble Apex Court has held that interpretation of social-economic legislation should further the object and purpose of the legislation. Therefore, we find it difficult to accept the interpretation sought to be given by the ld. DR to the amendments made in the provisions of section 80-IB(10), which admittedly are beneficial provisions, because if the same is accepted, it will not only defeat the legislative intention clearly spelt out in the Explanatory Note to give the benefit of extended period of completion to all the projects which had already 'commenced, but shall also lead to the absurd results as discussed above. Accordingly, we reject the same and uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) holding that the assessee having completed the residential project in question before 31-3-2003, it was entitled to the benefit of section 80-IB(10). Ground No. 4 of the Revenue's appeal is accordingly dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
|