M/s. Samrat Corporation, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 1147/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8447 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROOP CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Section: 143(3); 80IB; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA NOS. 1147 TO 1149/AHD/2011 ALONG WITH ITA NOS. 344 & 1671/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01 TO 2003-04 & 2005-06) M/S. SAMRAT CORPORATION C/O. V. P. PATEL & CO. ADV., A-102, AKSHARDHAM, SHAHIBAUG, NR. UNDERBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD - 4 APPELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(3) / WARD 9(1), AHMEDABAD RESPONDENT PAN: AALFS1024P /BY ASSESSEE : SHRI M. K. PATEL, A.R. /BY REVENUE : SHRI ROOPCHAND, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 12.09.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.09.2017 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE FIVE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2003-04 & 2005-06 EMANATE FROM THE CIT(A)-XV, AHMEDABADS SEP ARATE ORDERS DATED 31.01.2011 IN FIRST THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND DATE D 16.11.2012 AND 05.03.2013 IN LATTER TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS IN CASE NOS. CIT(A)-XV/ 9(3)/415/09-10, CIT(A)- XV/9(3)/419/09-10, CIT(A)-XV/9(3)/418/09-10, CIT(A) -XV/9(1)/467/11-12 & CIT(A)-XV/ITO/9(1)/398/10-11, UPHOLDING ASSESSING O FFICERS IDENTICAL ACTION DISALLOWING SECTION 80IB(10) DEDUCTION(S) OF RS.4,6 6,913/-, RS.26,02,618/-, ITA NOS. 1147 TO 1149/AHD/2011 ALONG WITH ITA NOS. 344 & 1671/AHD/2013 (A.YS.: 2000-01 TO 2003-04 & 2005-06) (M/S. SAMRA T CORPORATION VS. ITO) - 2 - RS.40,58,946/-, RS.45,68,013/- AND RS.20,70,360/-; RESPECTIVELY, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN S HORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH SIDES. CASE FILES PERUSED. 2. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES INFORM US AT THE OUTSET THAT THE SOLE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE IN ALL FIVE INSTANT APPEALS IS THAT OF CORRECTNESS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IDENTICAL ACTION DISALLOWING ASSESSEES DEDUCTION C LAIMED U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT QUA THE HOUSING PROJECT IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF A SOCIETY M/S. SAUNDARYA CO- OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. INVOLVING THE ABOVE SPECIFIC FIGURES; ASSESSMENT YEAR-WISE. WE THUS TREAT ASSESSEES FIRST APPEAL I TA NO.1147/AHD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AS THE LEAD CASE. 3. CASE RECORDS SUGGEST THE INSTANT LIS TO BE SECON D ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THIS ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM COMPRISING OF NINE PARTNERS HOLDING VARIABLE SHARE. IT CAME TO BE CONSTITUTED W.E.F. 15.10.1999. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN ON 23.10.2000 STATING NIL INCOME A FTER CLAIMING SECTION 80IB(10) DEDUCTION AMOUNTING TO RS.4,66,913/-. THE SAME STO OD PROCESSED ON 20.02.2002. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER FORMED REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT ASSESSEES TAXABLE INCOME LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT . HE THEREFORE ISSUED SECTION 148 NOTICE DATED 18.05.2004. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE SHOWN ITSELF AS A CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISOR PER ITS FORM 3CD OF AUDIT R EPORT U/S.44AB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN FRAMED RE-ASSESSMENT ON 24.0 3.2005 DISALLOWING THE ABOVE DEDUCTION CLAIM. THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER DATED 20. 01.2006 PARTLY ACCEPTED ASSESSEES CLAIM. THE REVENUE FILED ITS APPEAL BEF ORE THIS TRIBUNAL. A CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITS ORDER DATED 07.01.2009 REMITTED THE IS SUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDER: 'SINCE A COPY OF THE RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HAS NOT BEEN PLACED BEFORE US WHILE BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE MA TTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID DECISIONS OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHAKTI CORPORATION & OTHERS IN ITA NOS. 1503/AHD/2008 AND M/S. RADHE DEVELOPERS & OTHERS IN ITA NO.2482/AHD/2006, IN THE INTEREST O F JUSTICE, WE VACATE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE ITA NOS. 1147 TO 1149/AHD/2011 ALONG WITH ITA NOS. 344 & 1671/AHD/2013 (A.YS.: 2000-01 TO 2003-04 & 2005-06) (M/S. SAMRA T CORPORATION VS. ITO) - 3 - DIRECTIONS TO ANALYZE THE RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT AGRE EMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE UNDERTAKING OF TAXPAYER WITH THE LANDOWNER IN THE L IGHT OF FACTS OBTAINING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED FOR THE SAID UNDERTAKI NG BY THE TAXPAYER AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORE SAID DECISIONS OF THE ITAT AS ALSO AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO TH E TAXPAYER AND THEREAFTER DECIDE AS TO WHETHER THE UNDERTAKING OF THE TAXPAYE R HAS INDEED PURCHASED THE LAND FOR A FIXED CONSIDERATION FROM THE LAND OWNER AND HAS DEVELOPED THE HOUSING PROJECT AT ITS OWN COST AND RISKS INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT. IN THE EVENT THE AO FINDS THAT THE LAND HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY THE UN DERTAKING OF THE TAXPAYER AND HAS ALL THE DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT A ND DEVELOPED THE LAND AT HIS OWN COST AND RISKS, THE AO SHOULD ALLOW THE DEDUCTI ON U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN CASE THE AO FINDS THAT T HE UNDERTAKING OF THE TAX PAYER HAS ACTED ON BEHALF OF THE LAND OWNER AND HAS GOT ONLY THE FIXED CONSIDERATION FROM THE LAND OWNER FOR THE DEVELOPME NT OF THE HOUSING PROJECT, THE TAX PAYER WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY DEDUCTIO N U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, GROUND NO.L IN BOTH THE APPE ALS IS DISPOSED OF AS INDICATED HEREINBEFORE.'(EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 4. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TOOK UP CONSEQUENTIAL PR OCEEDING. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RELEVANT DOCUMENT COMPRISING OF APPROVED PLAN, SECTION 10CCB AUDIT REPORT, DEVELOPMENT PERMISSIONS/RAJA CHITTI, LOCAL AUTHORITIES BU SANCTION AS WELL AS ITS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 06.03.2000 ENTER ED INTO WITH THE OWNER SOCIETY M/S. SAUNDARYA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. FO R DEVELOPING THE IMPUGNED HOUSING PROJECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED CONSE QUENTIAL ASSESSMENT ON 21.12.2009 ONCE AGAIN DISALLOWING SECTION 80IB(10) DEDUCTION CLAIM AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE RELEVANT CLAUSES IN ASSESSEES ABO VE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. HE FOUND THE ABOVE SOCIETY TO BE OWNING THE PROJECT LA ND IN QUESTION. THE SAID SOCIETY HAD TAKEN ALL STEPS TO APPLY FOR CONSTRUCTION CLAIM AS ACCEPTED IN LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACTION APPROVING THE PROJECT IN QUESTION WHICH NOWH ERE INDICATED ASSESSEES NAME TO BE MENTIONED THEREIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBS ERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COME IN THE PICTURE ONLY BY WAY OF THE ABOVE DEVELO PMENT AGREEMENT WHICH DID NOT INDICATE ANY SUCH DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY PERFORME D AT ITS BEHEST. 5. IT EMERGES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VEHEMENTLY CONT ENDED THAT OWNERSHIP OF PROJECT LAND NO MORE FOUND A VALID CRITERIA FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IB(10) DEDUCTION AS PER THIS TRIBUNALS TWIN DECISIONS IN RADHE AND SHAKTI DEVELOPERS (SUPRA). THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINED THE SAID P LEA AS WELL. HE OPINED IN ITA NOS. 1147 TO 1149/AHD/2011 ALONG WITH ITA NOS. 344 & 1671/AHD/2013 (A.YS.: 2000-01 TO 2003-04 & 2005-06) (M/S. SAMRA T CORPORATION VS. ITO) - 4 - ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE SAID CASE LAW HAD NOT BEE N ACCEPTED AT THE DEPARTMENTS BEHEST SO AS TO ATTAIN FINALITY. HE THEREAFTER OBS ERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE PLOT IN QUESTION FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WITHOUT HAVING ANY STAKE IN ADMITTING PROSPECTIVE BIAS OR CONSIDERATION MONE Y OR FINANCE ETC. HE THEN REJECTED ASSESSEES RELIANCE UPON ITS DEVELOPMENT A GREEMENT TO BE NOT IN THE NATURE OF CONVEYANCE DEED EXECUTED BY THE SOCIETY IN ITS F AVOUR. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OPINION ACCORDINGLY WAS THAT THE ASSESSEES JOB IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE ABOVE HOUSING PROJECT WAS THAT OF PERFORMING ARCHITECTURA L AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING FUNCTIONS ALONG WITH FINANCE, RISK AND REWARD IN TH E HOUSING PROJECT INCLUDING SALE OF CORRESPONDING DWELLING UNITS TO PROSPECTIVE BUYE RS WAS AKIN TO A CIVIL CONTRACTOR INSTEAD OF A DEVELOPER. HE FURTHER CONSIDERED CLAU SE O IN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT STIPULATED THE ASSESSEE TO RECEIVE DEVELO PMENT CHARGES @15% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS IN ADDITION TO LABOUR EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDED ALL THIS MATERIAL TO BE SUFFICIENTLY INDI CATING THE ASSESSEE TO BE A MERE CONTRACTOR ONLY THAN DEVELOPER NOT ENTITLED FOR THE IMPUGNED SECTION 80IB(10) DEDUCTION. HE THEREFORE MADE THE DISALLOWANCE IN Q UESTION AMOUNTING TO RS.4,66,910/-. 6. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMS THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ABOV E ACTION DISALLOWING ASSESSEES DEDUCTION CLAIM. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE HAVE ALREAD Y INDICATED THAT THE SOLE QUESTION ARISING FOR OUR APT ADJUDICATION IS WHETHE R OR NOT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR SECTION 80IB(10) DEDUCTION IN ABOVE SET OF FACT S. IT IS NO MORE IN DISPUTE THAT SECTION 80IB(10) DEDUCTION DOES NOT ENVISAGE OWNERS HIP OF THE PLOT IN QUESTION RELEVANT TO A HOUSING PROJECT AS PER THIS TRIBUNAL S DECISION IN RADHE DEVELOPERS CASE (SUPRA). HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HA S UPHELD THE SAME IN ITS JUDGMENT REPORTED AS CIT VS. RADHE DEVELOPERS (2012) 341 ITR 483 (GUJ.). WE ARE INFORMED THAT HONBLE APEX COURT HAS DECLINED REVEN UES SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AS WELL ON 27.07.2012 IN A GROUP CASE TITLED AS ITO VS . SHRI GOKUL CORPORATION. ITA NOS. 1147 TO 1149/AHD/2011 ALONG WITH ITA NOS. 344 & 1671/AHD/2013 (A.YS.: 2000-01 TO 2003-04 & 2005-06) (M/S. SAMRA T CORPORATION VS. ITO) - 5 - 8. WE FURTHER FIND THAT ANOTHER CO-ORDINATE BENCH D ECISION IN CASE OF SHRI UMEYA CORPORATION VS. ITO ITA NO.211/AHD/2010 DECID ED ON JULY 7,2015 FURTHER HOLDS THAT IT IS THE ENTREPRENEURIAL RISK INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT OF A HOUSING PROJECT THAN OWNERSHIP OF THE PROJECT LAND WHICH FORMS THE DECISIVE FACTOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING SECTION 80IB(10) DEDUCTION CLAIM. LEARN ED CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION SETTLES THE ISSUE AS UNDER: 3. SO FAR AS THIS GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CON CERNED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING RESIDENTIAL H OUSING PROJECTS. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A DEDUCTION OF RS 49, 34,922 UNDER SECTION 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT, BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT OWNER OF THE LAND ON WHICH HOUSING PROJECT WAS DEVELOPED. IT WAS NOTED THAT 'THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT OWNER OF THE LAND ON WHICH THE PROJECT WAS DEVELOPED AND THE ASS ESSEE HAD NOT ACQUIRED THE DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT. THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OWN THE LAND, SINCE THE NECESSARY APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WAS TAKEN BY THE LAND OWNERS AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY ACTED AS AN AGENT AND AS A CONTRACTOR AS IT HAS ENTERED I NTO CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH THE LANDOWNERS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE F OR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED TH E MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. WHILE REJECTING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSE, LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS FOLLOWING POI NTS EMERGE: 1. IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT ENTERED INTO DEVELOPM ENT AGREEMENTS WITH THE OWNERS OF LAND TO CARRY OUT WORK ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS. THE APPELLANT INVESTED NO AMOUNT WITH RESPECT TO PU RCHASE OF LAND. IN THE SHAKTI CORPORATION CASE HON'BLE ITAT FOUND THAT THE LAND HAS BEEN PURCHASED AS WELL AS DEVELOPED BY THE APPELLAN T, BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE HERE. VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 24.11. 2009 IT WAS ONCE AGAIN STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT PURCHASED L ANDS BUT THE LANDS OWNED BY THE OTHER PERSONS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED IN T ERMS OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 2.7.2003 WAS ENTERED BY THE APPELLANT WITH THE LAND OWNER SHRI R AMABHAI CHATURDAS PATEL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PRO JECT KNOWN AS SOMESHWAR AND ANOTHER AGREEMENT DATED 2.4.2004 WAS ENTERED WITH SHRI PARSOTAMBHAI JOITARAM PATEL FOR CONSTRUCTION / DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOUSING PROJECT KNOWN AS SOMESHWAR PART 2. THE PERUSAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS SHOWS THAT THE PROJECTS WERE BUILT BY THE APPELLANT, BEARING ALL COSTS AND THE PROFIT MARGIN WOULD BE APPORTIONED BY THE DEVELOPER (THIS IS CLEAR FROM CL AUSE 13 OR THE ITA NOS. 1147 TO 1149/AHD/2011 ALONG WITH ITA NOS. 344 & 1671/AHD/2013 (A.YS.: 2000-01 TO 2003-04 & 2005-06) (M/S. SAMRA T CORPORATION VS. ITO) - 6 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT), BUT AT THE VERY BEGINNING O F THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT TH E OWNER OF THE LAND IS NOT THE DEVELOPER, THAT THE DEVELOPER (APPE LLANT) HAD BEEN APPOINTED TO DEVELOP / BUILD BY CONSTRUCTING TENEME NTS OF THE SAID PROPERTIES ALONG WITH THE WORK OF DEVELOPMENT OF BA SIC COMMON INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES, FID/EASE REFER TO CLAUSE 1 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT) . CLAUSE 2 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT STATES AS UNDER: 'THE SAID OWNER SHALL SELL / ALLOT TO THE DESIRING PERSONS THE PLOT/S EITHER BY HIMSELF OR THROUGH THE DEVELOPER/B UILDER BEING THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART.' THUS IN THIS CASE THE LAND WAS NEVER PURCHASED BY T HE APPELLANT, NEITHER ANY INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO WARDS COST OF LAND. THE APPELLANT ACTED AS AN AGENT / CONTRACTOR OF THE LAND OWNERS AND CONSTRUCTED THE HOUSING PROJECTS ON THE AUTHORI TY GIVEN BY THE LAND OWNERS. 2 RELIANCE IS PLACED ON HON'BLE IT AT MUMBAI LARGER BENCH, MUMBAI DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. B.T. PATIL & SO NS BELGAUM CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED DATED 26.10.2009 (ITA NO.1408 & 1409 / PN / 2003 AY 2000-2001 AND 2001-02) WHERE 80IA DEDU CTION HAS BEEN DENIED HOLDING THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE ENTERED IN TO A WORKS CONTRACT. IN THIS DECISION IN PARA 54 PART OF MEMOR ANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS IN THE FINANCE BILL 2007 HAS BEEN QU OTED, RELEVANT PORTION IS REPRODUCED BELOW: '.....ACCORDINGLY, IT IS PROPOSED TO CLARIFY THAT T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-IA SHALL NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO EXECU TES A WORKS CONTRACT ENTERED INTO WITH THE UNDERTAKING OR ENTER PRISE REFERRED TO IN THE SAID SECTION. THUS IN A CASE WHE RE A PERSON MAKES THE INVESTMENT AND HIMSELF EXECUTES THE DEVEL OPMENT WORK I.E. CARRIES OUT THE CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WORK, HE WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR TAX BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80-IA. IN CO NTRAST TO THIS, A PERSON WHO ENTERS INTO A CONTRACT WITH ANOTHER PE RSON (I.E. UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 80 -IA) FOR EXECUTING WORKS CONTRACT, WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE TAX BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80-IA.' THUS THE MEMORANDUM POINTS OUT INVESTMENT ALSO TO M AKE A DEVELOPER ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. HON'BLE IT AT MUM BAI DECISION CITED ABOVE IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT BE CAUSE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT A MADE ANY INVESTMENT TOWARDS OWNERSHIP OF LAND OR PROJECT. IT WAS ASSIGNED CONSTRUCTION / DEVELOPMENT OF THE H OUSING PROJECTS BY THE LAND OWNERS, THOUGH IT INCURRED COST AND DERIVE D PROFIT BUT IT WAS NEVER THE OWNER OF THE PROJECT OR OF THE LAND ON WH ICH IT WAS CONSTRUCTED. THE INDIVIDUAL PLOTS ON WHICH TENEMENT S WERE CONSTRUCTED WERE PURCHASED BY THE INDIVIDUAL TENEME NT BUYERS FROM ITA NOS. 1147 TO 1149/AHD/2011 ALONG WITH ITA NOS. 344 & 1671/AHD/2013 (A.YS.: 2000-01 TO 2003-04 & 2005-06) (M/S. SAMRA T CORPORATION VS. ITO) - 7 - THE LAND OWNERS. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO U/ S. 80IB(10) (ON THE GROUNDS SUMMARIZED IN PARA 5 ABOVE) IS THEREFOR E CONFIRMED.' 4. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FU RTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASEIN THE LIGHT OF THE APP LICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 6. WE FIND THAT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RADHE DEVELO PERS [(2012) 341 ITR 403 (GUJ)], HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD AN OC CASION TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND, ON WHICH HOUSING PROJECT IS D EVELOPED, IN THE CONTEXT OF ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10). HO N'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS, IN THIS CONTEXT, INTER ALIA OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 32. SEC. 80-16(10) OF THE ACT THUS PROVIDES FOR DEDUCTIONS TO AN UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING AND CONSTRUCTING HOUSING PROJECTS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES NOTED ABOVE. IT DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT THE LAND MUST BE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING SUCH DEDUCTIONS. 33. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT WHILE INTERPRETING THE STATUTE, PARTICULARLY, THE TAXING STATUTE, NOTHING CAN BE READ INTO THE PROVIS IONS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THE CONDITION WHI CH IS NOT MADE PART OF S. 80-18(10) OF THE ACT, NAMELY THAT OF OWNING T HE LAND, WHICH THE ASSESSEE DEVELOPS, CANNOT BE SUPPLIED BY ANY PURPOR TED LEGISLATIVE INTENT. 34. WE HAVE REPRODUCED RELEVANT TERMS OF DEVELOPMEN T AGREEMENTS IN BOTH THE SETS OF CASES. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE TER MS AND CONDITIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN FULL RESPONSIBILITIES F OR EXECUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. UNDER THE AGREEMENTS, THE ASS ESSEE HAD FULL AUTHORITY TO DEVELOP THE LAND AS PER HIS DISCRETION . THE ASSESSEE COULD ENGAGE PROFESSIONAL HELP FOR DESIGNING AND ARCHITEC TURAL WORK. ASSESSEE WOULD ENROLL MEMBERS AND COLLECT CHARGES. PROFIT OR LOSS WHICH MAY RESULT FROM EXECUTION OF THE PROJECT BELO NGED ENTIRELY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT CAN THUS BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEVELOPED THE HOUSING PROJECT. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT HAVE OWNED THE LAND WOULD BE OF NO CONSEQUENCE. (EMPHASIS, BY UNDERLINING, SUPPLIED BY US) 7. IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING, THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB HAS BEEN SATISFIED INASMUCH AS WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSES SEE IS ENGAGED IN 'DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECTS', ALL THA T IS MATERIAL IS WHETHER ASSESSEE IS TAKING THE ENTREPRENEURSHIP RISK IN EXE CUTION OF SUCH PROJECT. WHEN PROFITS OR LOSSES, AS A RESULT OF EXECUTION OF PROJ ECT AS SUCH, BELONG PREDOMINANTLY TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE IS OBVI OUSLY TAKING THE ITA NOS. 1147 TO 1149/AHD/2011 ALONG WITH ITA NOS. 344 & 1671/AHD/2013 (A.YS.: 2000-01 TO 2003-04 & 2005-06) (M/S. SAMRA T CORPORATION VS. ITO) - 8 - ENTREPRENEURSHIP RISK QUA THE PROJECT; AND IS, ACCO RDINGLY, ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10), IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. THE ASSUMPTION OF SUCH AN ENTREPRENEURSHIP RISK IS NOT DEPENDENT ON O WNERSHIP OF THE LAND. THE BUSINESS MODEL OF 'DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECTS' BY BUYING, ON OUTRIGHT BASIS, AND CONSTRUCTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS THEREON COULD PROBABLY BE THE SIMPLEST BUSINESS MODELS IN THIS LINE OF ACTIVITY, BUT MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS AN IMPROVISATION IN THE BUSINESS MODEL OR BECAUSE THE ASSESSE HAS ADOPTED SOME OTHER BUSINESS MODELS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECT DOES NOT VITIATE FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTER OF T HE BUSINESS ACTIVITY AS LONG AS THE RISKS AND REWARDS OF DEVELOPING THE HOUSING PROJECT] IN SUBSTANCE, REMAIN WITH THE ASSESSE. IT IS DIFFICULT, IF NOT AL TOGETHER IMPOSSIBLE, TO VISUALIZE ALL THE BUSINESS MODELS THAT AN ASSESSEE MAY USE IN THIS DYNAMIC COMMERCIAL WORLD EVEN AS, IN SUBSTANCE, THE FUNDAMENTAL CHARAC TER OF THE BUSINESS REMAINS THE SAME, BUT CERTAINLY SUCH MODALITIES OR COMPLEXI TIES OF BUSINESS MODELS CANNOT COME IN THE WAY OF ELIGIBILITY FOR AN INCENT IVE WHICH IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF 'DEVELOPING AND BUILDING A HOUSING PROJECT'. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION, CONCEPTUAL OR LEGAL, IN RESTRICTING ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) TO ANY PARTICULAR BUSINESS MODEL THAT AN E NTREPRENEUR ADOPTS IN THE COURSE OF DEVELOPING AND CONSTRUCTING HOUSING PROJE CT. 8. AS REGARDS LEARNED CIT(A)'S RELIANCE ON THE DECI SION OF A LARGER BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF B T PATII & SONS (BELGAUM) CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD VS ACIT [(2010) 1 ITR (TRIBUNAL) 703 (MUM)], WHAT HAS BEEN REFERRED TO BY HER IS THE VIEW OF THE THREE MEMBER BENCH RESOLVING THE POINT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEMBERS OF THE DIVISION BENCH. HOWEVER, THIS VIEW WAS STILLBORN, AND ITS RELEVANCE IS CONFINED TO ACADEMIC SIGNIFICA NCE, FOR THE REASON THAT THAT WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE MAJORITY VIEW, VIDE ORDE R DATED 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 AND ON SOMEWHAT PECULIAR FACT SITUATION IN THIS CAS E, THE FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ENDORSE THESE VIEWS. QUITE TO THE CONTRARY, FOLLOWING HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ABG HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD AND ORS [(2010) 322 ITR 323 (BOM)] AND UPON BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT'S SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS IN THE CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL'S FINAL ORDER HAD, INTER ALIA, CONCLUDED A S FOLLOWS: .......WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE OPINION OF THIRD MEMBER U/S.255(4) OF THE ACT, WE TAKE VIEW IN CONFORMITY WITH ORDER OF J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF ABG HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME THOUGH CONTRARY TO THE OPINION EXPRESSED BY TH E THIRD MEMBER. SO IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF ABG HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. SUP RA), THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/ S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE PROJECTS IN QUES TION FOR BOTH THE YEARS. 9. IT IS NOT EVEN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ASSUME THE ENTREPRENEURSHIP RISKS OF THE HOUSING PR OJECT. THE FORMAT OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR TRANSFER OF BUILT UP UNIT, AND BUS INESS MODEL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THAT PURPOSE, IS NOT DECISIVE FACTOR FOR DETERM INING ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION ITA NOS. 1147 TO 1149/AHD/2011 ALONG WITH ITA NOS. 344 & 1671/AHD/2013 (A.YS.: 2000-01 TO 2003-04 & 2005-06) (M/S. SAMRA T CORPORATION VS. ITO) - 9 - UNDER SECTION 80 IB (10), BUT THAT IS ALL THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FOUND FAULT WITH. THE OBJECTIONS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE THUS DEVOID OF LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE MERITS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION S, AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE STAND OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, IN DECLINING DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 80IB(10) AND ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, IS INCORRECT. WE VACATE THE SA ME AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE. 10. GROUND NO.1 IS THUS ALLOWED. 9. WE TAKE CUE FROM THE ABOVE SETTLED LEGAL POSITIO N TO NOW COME TO ASSESSEES DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 06.03.2000 WITH THE OWN ER SOCIETY M/S. SAUNDARYA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. FORMING PAGES 43 TO 47 IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE SAID AGREEMENT SUFFICIENTLY INDICATES THE ASSESSEE/ FIRST PARTY TO BE BOTH DEVELOPER AS WELL AS CONTRACTOR THAN THE LATTER ROLE ONLY AS FOL LOWS: AND PARTY OF THE FIRST PART WILL BE APPOINTED AS A DEVELOPER AND CONTRACTOR. THE TERMS & CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT ARE AS UND ER:- (A) TO BOOK THE MEMBERS FOR THE UNIT TO BE CONSTRUC TED ON THE SAID LAND BY SECOND PARTY. (B) AT PRESENT COST OF A UNIT IS NOT FIXED, AS STIL L COST OF THE UNIT TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON A AID LAND, AND COST OF THE MATERIAL , LABOURS AND USAGE OF THAT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM THE SECOND PARTY. AND WHE N PARTY OF THE SECOND PART WILL GIVE THE COST OF THE UNIT TO BE CONSTRUCT ED, AFTER CALCULATING AND DISCUSSING WITH LABOUR CONTRACTOR TOTAL MATERIAL R EQUIRE, COST OF THE MATERIAL, COST OF THE LABOUR ETC. RATE OF THE UNIT WILL BE FIXED BY SECOND PARTY AID ACCORDINGLY FIRST PARTY WILL COLLECT FROM MEMBERS. THE COST OF THE UNITS DOES NOT INCLUDE LIFT EXP., WATER, BOAR, MOTO R PUMP, GENERAL CONNECTION EXP., AND COST OF ELECTRIC CABLE, AND AR CHITECT ENGINEER FEES, BECAUSE EXACT AMOUNT OF ALL ABOVE EXP. WILL BE KNOW N AFTER SOMETIME AND THAT WILL COLLECT SEPARATELY BY FIRST PARTY. (C) AS PER THIS AGREEMENT FIRST PARTY WILL REGISTE RED THE MEMBERS OF THE SCHEME AND THEY WILL COLLECT AMOUNT BY CASH OR BY C HEQUE IN FAVOUR OF FIRM NAME AND AFTERWARDS THE FIRST PARTY WILL RETURN THI S AMOUNT TO SECOND PARTY. (D) TILL THE COMPLETION OF ALL THE UNITS AND HANDL ING OVER THE POSSESSION OF ALL THE UNITS. THAT MEANS PARTY OF THE FIRST PART HAS F ULL RIGHT WHETHER TO ENTER OR TO NOT ENTER THE NAME AS MEMBER IN THE SECOND PA RTY TILL FULL PAYMENT OF THE UNIT RECEIVE BY FIRST PARTY. AND FIRST PARTY WI LL HOLD THE POSSESSION OF ANY UNREGISTERED UNITS OR VACANT UNITS AND FOR THAT SECOND PARTY WILL NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS. AND PARTY OF THE FIRST PART W ILL HOLD THE POSSESSION OF THE UNIT TILL THEY RECEIVES THE FULL AMOUNT OF UNIT S AND SECOND PARTY DO NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION. ITA NOS. 1147 TO 1149/AHD/2011 ALONG WITH ITA NOS. 344 & 1671/AHD/2013 (A.YS.: 2000-01 TO 2003-04 & 2005-06) (M/S. SAMRA T CORPORATION VS. ITO) - 10 - (E) PARTY OF THE FIRST, PART WILL GIVE ONLY THE LI ST OF THE MEMBER, UNIT AS & WHEN IT BOOKED TO SECOND PARTY. PARTY OF THE SECOND PART WILL REGISTERED THAT UNIT HOLDER AS A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY AS & WHEN IT IS I NFORM BY FIRST PARTY IN WRITTEN AND BY GIVING THE FULL DETAILS OF THE PAYME NT TO SECOND PARTY. AND IT IS ALSO DEARLY MENTION TRIAL' SECOND PARTY WILL NOT ENTER THE NAME OF THE UNIT HOLDER AS A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY TILL THEY MAKE TH E FULL PAYMENTS OF THE UNIT AS WELL AS OF THE MAINTENANCE TO FIRST PARTY, TILL THAT UNIT HOLDER WILL NOT HAVE DIRECT CONTACT OR AGREEMENT WITH SECOND PARTY, AND TILL THAT THEY ARE NOT THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY. FIRST PARTY HAS FUL L RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AMOUNT TRANSACTION OF SUCH UNIT HOLDER, AND SECOND, PARTY DOES NOT HAVE ANY LIABILITY. (F) AS PER THIS AGREEMENT FIRST PARTY HAS ALL RIGH TS TO REGISTER THE UNIT HOLDER, TO COLLECT THE AMOUNT OF THE UNITS IN THEIR NAME TO GI VE THE RECEIPT OF AMOUNT ETC., AND SECOND PARTY DOES NOT HAVE ANY LIABILITIE S. (G) FIRST PARTY HAS FULL RIGHTS TO BOOK ANY PERSON , FIRM, COMPANY, TO MAKE ADVERTISEMENT OR HANDBILL OR HOARDINGS, NEON SIGN O F THE SCHEME OR TO GIVE ADVERTISEMENT IN ANY LOCAL, OR NATIONAL DAILY WEEKL Y OR IN MONTHLY MAGAZINES ETC. FOR THE SCHEME, BUT FOR THIS EXPENSE S WILL BE BORN BY FIRST PARTY. (H) FIRST PARTY WILL KEEP ALL THE AGREEMENTS, LETTE RS, COPIES OF APPROVED PLAN ETC. OF THE SAID SCHEME WITH THEM AND THEY HAVE LIE N OVER IT. (I) PARTY OF THE FIRST PART APPOINTED AS A DEVELOPE R/CONTRACTOR IN PURSUANCE OF AGREEMENT. SECOND PARTY ARE NOT TO ALLOW TO BOOK ANY MEMBERS FOR THE SAID SCHEME, PARTY OF THE SECOND PART IS GIVING THE PROMISE THAT THEY HAVE NOT REGISTERED AND UNIT HOLDER OR NOT ENTER ANY PER SON AS A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY. TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE FIRST PARRY THE MEMBERS OF THE SECOND PARTY AT PRESENT WILL BE ALSO REGISTER BY FIRST PAR TY. (J) FIRST, PARTY HAS A RIGHT TO APPOINT ANY AGENCIE S, EXPERTS ETC. IF REQUIRE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCHEME AND SALARY, OTHER EXP ENSES WILL BE BORN BY FIRST PARTY AND SECOND PARTY WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBL E. (K) FIRST PART IS APPOINTED AS A DEVELOPER /CONTRA CTOR BY THE SECOND PARTY, HENCE WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION, FIRST PARTY CANNOT TRANSFER OR ASSIGN THEIR RIGHTS TO ANY OTHER PERSON. (L) IF ANY, PROBLEM ARISE FOR THE BOOKING OF THE U NIT HOLDER OR ANY LEGAL PROBLEM ARISE THEN, ALL SUCH LEGAL ACTIONS WILL BE TAKEN BY THE FIRST PARTY AND EXPENSES WILL BE BORN BY THE FIRST PARTY. SECON D PARTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE OR LIABLE FOR IT. (M) PARTY OF THE FIRST PART WILL NOT BOOK ANY PERS ON, FIRM, COMPANY AS A UNIT HOLDER WHO HAS COMMITTED ANY DEFAULT OR DOING ANY A CTIVITY WHICH IS ILLEGAL IN THE EYES OF LAW AND ALSO ANY PERSON WHO IS CONNE CTED WITH SUCH FIRMS, OR COMPANY OR ANY PERSON FORBIDDEN BY THE SECOND PA RTY IN THEIR U LEAFLET. ITA NOS. 1147 TO 1149/AHD/2011 ALONG WITH ITA NOS. 344 & 1671/AHD/2013 (A.YS.: 2000-01 TO 2003-04 & 2005-06) (M/S. SAMRA T CORPORATION VS. ITO) - 11 - (N) PARTY OF THE FIRST PART HAS RIGHT TO SHOW ANY PAPERS REGARDING LAND, PROPERTY, CONSTRUCTION, PLANS AGREEMENTS TO THE UNI T HOLDER IF REQUIRE, AND THEY ALSO HAVE, RIGHT TO MAKE ANY AGREEMENT, DECLAR ATION, STATEMENT ON OATH ETC. WITH ANY PERSON, FIRM, COMPANY WHO CAME T O BECOME A UNIT HOLDER OF THE SAID SCHEME. (O) SECOND PARTY HAS TO PAY THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGE S TO THE FIRST PARTY ON THE BASIS OF THE UNITS THEY HAVE BOOKED. THE DEVELOPMEN T CHARGE WILL BE AT THE RATE OF 15% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS FROM THE MEMBERS. FIRST PARTY HAS A RIGHT TO COLLECT 15% AS A DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SAID DEVELO PMENT CHARGES IS IN ADDITION TO LABOUR CHARGES FOR WHICH SEPARATE AGREE MENT HAS BEEN MADE. (P) PARTY OF THE FIRST PART CAN DO ANY ACTIVITY IF REQUIRE FOR OBTAINING LOAN TO THE MEMBERS WHO WILL JOIN THE SAID SCHEME AND THE SECON D PARTY WILL GIVE THE FULL SUPPORT. AND IF FOR THE WHOLE SCHEME GENERAL L OAN IS TO BE REQUIRE FROM ANY INSTITUTE AND IF AT THAT TIME UNITS OF THE SAID SCHEME IS TO BE MORTGAGE 'THEN PARTY OF THE SECOND PART WILL GIVE A FULL SUP PORT. (Q) SECOND PARTY WILL AGREE TO MAKE ANY ALTERATION IN CONSTRUCTION OF UNIT OR TO PROVIDE SPECIAL FACILITY IF ANY SUGGEST BY FIRST PA RTY. (R) IF PARTY OF THE FIRST PART COMMIT ANY DELAY IN FULFILLING THE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENTS THEN PARTY OF THE SEC OND PARTY WILL TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT IMMEDIATELY AND ACCOUNTS WITH THE FI RST PARTY IS TO BE SETTLE WITH IN ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF THE CANCELLATION OF THIS AGREEMENT. 10. IT THUS EMERGES THAT THE ASSESSEE ONLY HAS UNDE RTAKEN THE ABOVE ENTREPRENEURIAL RISK / REWARD IN DEVELOPING THE ABO VE HOUSING PROJECT AFTER HAVING ACQUIRED DOMINANT CONTROL THEREOF. IT HAD FURTHER DISCHARGED ONEROUS RESPONSIBILITY INTER ALIA OF ADVERTISING THE ABOVE HOUSING PROJECT ; IF REQUIRED FOLLOWED BY BOOKING OF ALLOTTEES AS WELL AS COLLECTION OF CONSIDERATION MONEY WHEREAS THE OWNER SOCIETY NEVER PERFORMED ANY SUCH LIABILITY IN DEVELOPING IT S HOUSING PROJECTS. WE THEREFORE ACCEPT ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS CLAIMING ITSELF TO HAVE DEVELOPED THE ABOVE HOUSING PROJECT THEREBY RAISING SECTION 80IB(10) DEDUCTION CLAIM. WE ACCORDINGLY DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,66,910/-. ITS SO LE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND AS WELL AS LEAD APPEAL ITA NO.1147/AHD/2011 SUCCEED. 11. BOTH PARTIES NOW TAKE US TO ASSESSEES REMAININ G FOUR APPEALS (SUPRA) INVOLVING IDENTICAL DEDUCTION CLAIM U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT QUA THE VERY HOUSING PROJECT IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. WE THEREFOR E ADOPT THE SAME COURSE OF ACTION ITA NOS. 1147 TO 1149/AHD/2011 ALONG WITH ITA NOS. 344 & 1671/AHD/2013 (A.YS.: 2000-01 TO 2003-04 & 2005-06) (M/S. SAMRA T CORPORATION VS. ITO) - 12 - HEREIN AS WELL. THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE(S) OF SE CTION 80IB(10) DEDUCTION INVOLVING VARYING SUMS (SUPRA) IN THESE FOUR ASSESS MENT YEARS IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 12. THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS IN ITS ALL FIVE APPEALS. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 20 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017.] SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 20/09/2017 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0