TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... And Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM For the Assessee : Shri Rajeev Thakkar For the Revenue : Shri Sanjay Punglia ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. This appeal filed by Revenue is emanating out of order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (A) Pune 5, Pune dated 24.10.2016 for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- Assessee is a Partnership firm stated to be engaged in the business of development of housing project at Pune. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 21.09.2012 declaring total income at ₹ 37,14,667/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.27.03.2015 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts of the year for the year under consideration are similar to that of A.Y. 2011-12. The AO therefore asked the assessee as to why the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act not be disallowed. Assessee made detailed submissions which were not found acceptable to the AO. AO noted that as per the building permission issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), the commencement of the project was 29.03.2007. AO noticed that building A was not completed. He was of the view that for being eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, the completion of the housing project as a whole is necessary. In the case of the assessee AO noted that Building A could not be completed even by 31.03.2012 which was the prescribed date for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Buildings 'B', ' C ' and ' D' are concerned, is according to me a misconstrued interpretation. This is especially so, when the Appellant has fulfilled all the prescribed conditions laid down in Section 80IB (10) of the Act for the said flats and when the completion certif i cate for the same was issued by the local authority indicating completion prior to 31-3-2012.The AO referred to the relevant Para of the said decision applicable to the facts of the said case but failed to quote the relevant Para wherein the Tribunal has directed to allow the deduction for the residential units, as applicable in the Appellant's case under consideration. My view, regarding the misconstrued interpretation by the AO, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O has also confirmed, that the Assessee complied with all the conditions for granting of deduction u/s 80IB(10), as submitted by the Appellant before him. Though the aforesaid facts were considered by the AO in Para 16 of the Assessment order, the AO has commented on such the valuation report inter alia stating that Valuation Officer had merely given the factual report and he has not offered any comments on whether the project is eligible for claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) . This clearly indicates that even the report given by the Valuer appointed by the AO himself, was brushed aside lightly by the AO. In view of the discussions in the preceding paragraphs and as the Appellant had complied with the provisions laid down in Sec 80IB(10) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge in the factual position in the facts of the case for the year under consideration and that of earlier year and therefore no interference to the order of Ld.CIT(A), is called for, more so, when the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of Revenue in A.Y. 2011-12. He thus supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to allowability of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. We find that identical issue arose in assessee s own case in A.Y. 2011-12 as AO while deciding the issue had followed the order of AO for A.Y. 2011-12. We find that in A.Y. 2011-12, Ld.CIT(A) had decided the issue in favour of assessee and against the order of Ld.CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of CIT(A). The grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 6. The aforesaid decision of the Tribunal has not been set aside, stayed or over-ruled by Higher Judicial Authorities. Before us, Revenue has also not placed any material on record to point out any distinguishing feature in the facts of the present case and that of earlier year nor has placed any contrary binding decision in its support. We therefore following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in A.Y. 2011-12 and for similar reasons find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A) and thus the grounds of the Revenue are dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 19th day of Marc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
