9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to as "the Act") in respect of its housing project 'Mahaganesh Nagari' situated at Kesavnagar, Mundhwa, Pune. The deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80IB(10) in the impugned assessment years is as under : Assessment Year Deduction claimed u/s. 80IB(10) 2008-09 Rs. 68,13,878/- 2010-11 Rs. 85,83,327/- 2011-12 Rs. 1,47,39,268/- The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) on the ground that : i. the assessee has not completed the entire project before stipulated date i.e. 31st March, 2008, and ii. the assessee has not produced completion certificate from the competent local authority. Aggrieved by the orders of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by placing reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 937/PN/2010 for the assessment year 2006-07 decided on 28-02-2013 allowed the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal assailing the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3. The g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in the earlier assessment years. 6. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below. We have also considered the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 937/PN/2010 (supra) and ITA No. 1733/PN/2013 (supra). The Department has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in allowing assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act on the premise that the conditions laid down u/s. 80IB(10)(a)(i) are not complied with. The assessee has developed housing project 'Mahaganesh Nagari' situated at Kesavnagar, Mundhwa, Pune. The said housing project was developed by the assessee in two phases. The initial building plan was sanctioned by the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) on 31-03-2011. The first phase of the project approved was with respect to five buildings i.e. A, B, C, D, and E. Subsequently, on 25-01-2007 the building plan was approved for second phase consisting of buildings F, G and H, 10 row houses and amenities space. The assessee obtained completion certificate in respect of 80 flats ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat second approval with regard to F, G & H, 10 row houses and amenity space was obtained on 25.01.2007. It does not make any difference if it acknowledged/refer existence of earlier five buildings constructed. This second approval acknowledges the existence of first five buildings. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vandana Properties in ITA.No.3633 of 2009 (Bom) has held as under: 'The expression 'housing project' is neither defined under Section 2 of the Act nor under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. Even under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 as also under the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, the expression 'housing project' is not defined. Therefore, the expression 'housing project' in Section 80IB(10) would have to be construed as commonly understood. As rightly contended by Mr. Inamdar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee and Mr. Mistri, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the intervenors, the expression 'housing project' in common parlance would mean constructing a building or group of buildings consisting of sever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector vide letter dated 14.01.2010 communicated that no completion certificate was granted to any project approved before 31.12.2007, as mentioned above. Similarly, during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee brought to the notice of the CIT(A) that clarification was issued by the Town Planning authority that in respect of area falling outside the jurisdiction of PMC, the procedure is to obtain completion certificate from the registered Architect and it was also pointed out that Grampanchayat Wagholi was the local authority for this purpose. In this regard, the stand of the assessee has been that there was no procedure to issue completion certificate by Town Planning Department in respect of construction beyond the PMC limits. Section 80IB(10) does not define a local authority and it does not require that completion certificate should be granted by the same authority which has approved the building plan or issued the commencement certificate. Moreover, it was not possible in this case because land in question was excluded from PMC limit at relevant point of time as stated above. So there is no question of issuing completion certificate from PMC at relevant point o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clusion of land in question from PMC limits which is beyond the control of the assessee. Assessee should not suffer for the same. Moreover, concerned Gram Panchayat who issue completion certificate within stipulated time is entitled for issuing completion certificate as stated above after exclusion of the land in question from PMC limits. The taxing statute granting incentives for promotion of growth and development should be construed liberally and that provisions for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally. At the same time, restriction thereon has to be construed strictly so as to advance the object of provision and not to frustrate the same. The provisions of taxing statute should be construed harmoniously with the object of the statute to effectuate legislative intention. This view is fortified by decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Ramsukh Properties (supra), Rahul Construction Co. (supra) and others." 7. The ld. AR has fairly admitted that the issue raised in the present set of appeals is identical to the issue already adjudicated by the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2006-07. The Assessing Officer in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
