2017 (11) TMI 1819 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s. 80IB(10) - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to mention that on the same project the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal has decided the appeal in favour of the assessee for the earlier assessment year 2007-08. The relevant assessment year the CIT(A) has also made a finding that the project was designed as a composite project at the proposed site at survey no.486/1 482. The project of the assessee was also in an area more than one acre. The approvals were obtained on unit basis only for the benefit of taking advantage of the relevant rules of the local authority. From the order of the CIT(A) it is apparent that he had arrived at the conclusion in favour of the assessee after considering the facts of the case and the decision of various higher judiciaries on the identical issue. Therefore in these circumstances we do not find it necessary to interfere in his order. Hence the Revenue s appeal is devoid of merits. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - HELD THAT - At the time of hearing AR did not advance any argument on this issue. We also find that this ground is neither raised before the Ld.AO nor the CIT(A) on the earlier occasions. Therefore we do not find any merit in this ground raised by the assessee. Accordingly this ground raised by the assessee is also devoid of merits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order allowing deduction U/s. 80IB(10) of the Act.
2. Cross objection against reopening of assessment U/s.147 of the Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal against order allowing deduction U/s. 80IB(10) of the Act:
The appeal by the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the deduction U/s. 80IB(10) of the Act for the assessment year 2008-09. The Revenue contends that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction based on the High Court's decision in the assessee's case for the previous assessment year, while the Revenue's appeal was pending before the Supreme Court. The Revenue argued that the assessee obtained approvals separately for each block, disqualifying them from the deduction. However, the Ld.CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee, emphasizing the project was a composite one and met the necessary conditions for the deduction. The Tribunal upheld the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision, citing consistency in judgments and the project's compliance with the law.

Issue 2: Cross objection against reopening of assessment U/s.147 of the Act:
The assessee raised cross objections against the reopening of assessment U/s.147 of the Act, arguing it was bad in law. The Ld.AR did not present arguments on this issue during the hearing. The Tribunal noted that this ground was not raised before the authorities previously. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the cross objection raised by the assessee.

In conclusion, both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross objection were dismissed by the Tribunal, upholding the order allowing the deduction U/s. 80IB(10) of the Act and rejecting the objection against the reopening of assessment U/s.147 of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on the project's compliance with legal requirements and the consistency in judgments from higher authorities.