TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80-IB (10) of the Act to the extent of ₹ 9,63,289. II. The ld CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that if the assessee did not satisfy the conditions laid down in section 80IB-10 singly or severally, then the assessee is not entitled to the deduction under this section. He failed to appreciate the fact that evidence in this regard on has not been disputed by the assessee. 3. Learned Representatives agree that the issue under consideration in this ground of apepal is covered by the ITAT (Pune) Special Bench in the case of Brahma Associates v JCIT(111 ITD 113), which has since been confirmed by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Brahma Associates, 51 DTR 298 (Bom). It has been held by Their Lordships that sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the income returned by the assessee, it was submitted by the assessee that the income returned by the assessee takes into account the profit earned on sale of flats in Panchavati a building, in respect of which the said disclosure was made. It was submitted that the net profit after reducing administrative expenses works out to ₹ 9,63,289, which is totally exempted under section 80-IB(10) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and as such there is no need for addition of ₹ 20,00,000 as proposed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, however, was not satisfied. He proceed to add ₹ 20,00,000 by observing as follows:- The contention of the assessee is not acceptable. During the survey proceedings, the partner of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment order as well as the submissions and arguments of the AR as discussed above. I have also gone through the statement recorded during the survey of Shri Anand P. Bhagtani, partner of the appellant firm, produced by the AR which is placed on record. As per his answer to question no.25, the said partner has submitted as under: Q.. 25 : In AY 2006-07, do you have any plans for claiming deduction u/s.80-IB. Ans: In AY 2006-07, we have sold 2 flats at Panchvati till date, in respect of which we have earned profit of ₹ 20,00,000 approx. As Panchavati-A is not entitled for benefit u/s.80IB, the advance tax thereon amounting to ₹ 6,12,000 will be paid by us before the end of this month. Further, any advance tax that may ari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ept the admission made by the partner in assessee-firm, which is clearly of general nature and which is in any event not binding on the assessee. It is well settled law that addition cannot be made solely on the basis of statement recorded during the course of survey proceedings as has also been held by Hon ble Kerala High court in the case of Paul Mathews Sons v CIT (263 ITR 101). Keeping in mind these discussions, as also the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the CIT (A) and decline to interfere. 10. Ground Nos.III IV are dismissed. 11. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing i.e. on 28.4.2011 - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
