9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee under section 80IB to the extent of Rs. 48,96,000/- out of the total claim of Rs. 1,93,06,458/-?" 2. In Tax Appeal No. 671 of 2016, since the identical question arose, we had posted the said tax appeal for further hearing alongwith Tax Appeal No. 546 of 2011. Though served in both the tax appeals, no one appeared for the respondent-assessee. 3. Brief facts are as under: The respondent-assessee is engaged in the business of construction of housing schemes. For the assessment year 2006- 07, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act ['the Act' for short] with respect to two housing projects developed which were called Geet Gunjan Residency and Geet Gunjan Vatika. The case of the assessee w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urcated two projects for separate consideration the Assessing Officer held that Geet Gunjan Vatika project was developed on land area of 3000 sq.meters which was less than one acre, the minimum land area required for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. With respect to Geet Gunjan Vatika project, therefore, he disallowed the assesse's claim of deduction. 5. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner. The Appellate Commissioner allowed the appeal holding that merely because the two different societies were constituted would not mean that the projects were separate. He noted that all the permissions granted by the authorities were common. Secondly, he agreed that the assessee was not allowed to bifurcate th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nknown that such conditions imposed by the Revenue authorities come in printed proforma and are in cyclostyled manner. Whether that by itself established that both the housing projects were developed on a land forming composite block building would be a matter of appreciation of materials on record which, in the present case, would also include the evidence at the command of the Assessing Officer suggesting that physically societies were situated far apart from each other. The Commissioner and the Tribunal did not advert to this evidence at all and thus, committed a serious error. 9. Under the circumstances, let the matter be re-examined by the Appellate Commissioner, for which purpose, both the impugned orders are set aside and the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
