The ITO, Ward-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. B.M. Brothers, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 13/RJT/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 1324914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-03-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUR GARG
• Assessee Lawyers: DR ADHIA
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

E Y : S : IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL: RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT H.. [, XP .. , BEFORE SHRI T K SHARMA, JM AND SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA, AM ITA NO. 13/RJT /2012 [ [/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 ITO, WARD - 1(1), RAJKOT V. M/S B M AND BROTHERS MEGHRAJ, NILKANTH NAGAR MAIN ROAD, UNIVERSITY ROAD, NR. GORDHAN DAIRY, RAJKOT PAN: AAFFB 8835 M DATE OF HEARING : 20.03 .2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 .0 4 .2013 REVENUE BY : SHRI ANKUR GARG, CIT(DR) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D R ADHIA, AR / ORDER .. / D. K. SRIVASTAVA : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE CIT(A) - I, RAJKOT ON 30.09.2011 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) - I, RAJKOT, HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,45,67,940/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE IT ACT. 2. ON LEGAL AND FACTUAL STATUS OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A), OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE FINDING GIVEN IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE DISMISSED/DELETED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER BE RESTORED. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS AS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL ON 14.09.2008 RETURNING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.NIL A FTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION A MOUNTING TO RS.1,4 5,67,940/ - U/S 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT IN RESPECT OF A HOUSING PROJECT KNOWN AS MANINAGAR PROJECT AT RAJKOT . IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT HAD UNDERTAKEN A HOUSING PROJECT AT RAJKOT THE 2 ITA 13 /RJT/2012 AREA OF WHICH WAS STATED TO BE 3 ACRES AND 33 GUNTHA S . IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS LETTER DATED 30.11.2010 TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT HAD FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 80IB(10) FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION THEREUNDER. IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS TAKEN FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES , I.E. , RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND THE SIZE OF EACH UNIT IN THE SAID HOUSING PROJECT WAS LESS THAN 1,500 SQ. FT. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE A SSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT NO HOUSING PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR APPROVAL TO NOR WAS ANY APPROVAL OBTAINED FROM RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, LAY OUT PLAN FOR 119 UNITS WAS APPROVED BY THE COLLECTOR, RAJKOT ON 17.04.2002. ACCORDING TO HIM , THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FULFILL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 80IB(10) IN AS MUCH AS THERE WAS NO APPROVED BUILDING PLAN OR APPROVAL OF THE RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID PROJECT AS ONE HOUSING PROJECT . HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE PLAN TO RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN PIECE - MEAL MANNER IN RESPECT OF FEW UNITS. HE ALSO FOUND THAT EVEN COMPLETION CERTIFICATES WERE OBTAINED IN PIECE - MEAL MANNER. IT IS FURTHER ME NTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ONLY 69 APPROVALS WERE OBTAINED . THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBTAINED THE APPROVAL OF THE ENTIRE HOUSING PROJECT AS ONE PROJECT AND THAT COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATES A ND COMPLETION CERTIFICATES HAVE NOT BEEN OBTAINED IN RESPECT OF ALL 119 UNITS AS PER LAY OUT PLAN BEFORE 31.3.2008 . ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE AREA OF LAND ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT FOR EACH PLAN WAS LESS THAN 1 ACRES . THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) WERE NOT FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT INSPECTORS REPORT OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOWS THAT 9 PLOTS WERE TOTAL LY VACANT AND CONSTRUCTION S WERE STILL GOING ON 7 PLOTS. IT IS IN THE AFORESAID BACKGROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB(10). THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS BEHALF ARE SUMMARIZED IN PARA 12 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 12. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. FROM THE DISCUSSION CONTAINED IN PARA - 6 TO 9 ABOVE AND THE INSPECTORS REPORT, IT IS 3 ITA 13 /RJT/2012 CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE DOES NOT FULFILL CONDITIONS LAID DOW N IN SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE IT ACT. IT IS CLEAR THAT AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION OF LAY OUT PLAN FOR 119 PLOTS ON THE GIVEN PIECE OF LAND, THE ASSESSEES INTENTION TO UNDERTAKE HOUSING PROJECT WERE NOT REFLECTED OR EXPRESSED IN ANY MANNER NOR WAS ASSESSEES PLAN APPROVED AS A HOUSING PROJECT. WHAT HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE COLLECTOR WAS THE PLOTTING OF LAND AND N.A. PERMISSION AS IS USUALLY UNDERTAKEN BY MANY DEVELOPERS WHO DEVELOP PLOTS AND SELL THEM AS SUCH IN THE MARKET. THEY DO NOT UNDERTAKE CONSTRUCTION ON THE PLOTS. EVEN THE PLAN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RMC FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FEW UNITS, DID NOT REFLECT OR EXPRESS THE ASSESSEES INTENTION TO UNDERTAKE A HOUSING PROJECT ON A PIECE OF LAND ADMEASURING MORE THAN ONE ACRE. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN 69 APPROVAL S, EACH FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FEW TENEMENTS AND NONE IS FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT. THE FIRST EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IB(10) ENVISAGES REVISED APPROVALS AFTER THE FIRST APPROVAL HAS BEEN OBTAINED FOR SUCH HOUSING PROJECT. IT DOES NOT ENVISAGE MULTIPLE APPRO VALS OR APPROVALS IN A PIECEMEAL MANNER. SEC.80IB(10) USES THE WORD APPROVAL AND NOT APPROVALS FOR HOUSING PROJECT. AS EVIDENT F ROM THE INSPECTORS REPORT THAT SOME OF THE PLOTS ARE LYING VACANT EVEN AS ON DATE. IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE INSPECTORS RE PORT AND ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT NEITHER THE COMMENCEMENT NOR THE COMPLETION OF ENTIRE PROJECT HAS BEEN OBTAINED TILL DATE. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FULFILL THE BASIC CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80IB(10), ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.1,45,67, 940/ - IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. 4. ON APPEAL , THE LD CIT(A) HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: - 3.4 I HA V E CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CONTE NTIONS OF THE AR OF THE APPELLANT. THE MAIN BASIS OF NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) BY THE A.O. APPEARS TO BE THE AVERMENT OF THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN 69 APPROVALS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSTRUED APPROVAL FOR THE E NTIRE PROJECT. THE A.O. IS OF THE VIEW THAT S. 80IB(10) EXPLANATION (I) ENVISAGES APPROVAL TO BE 4 ITA 13 /RJT/2012 OBTAINED FOR SUCH HOUSING PROJECT, BUT DOES NOT ENVISAGE MULTIPLE APPROVALS OR APPROVALS IN PIECEMEAL MANNER. THE A.O. IS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT SECTION 80IB(10 ) USES THE WORD APPROVAL AND NOT APPROVALS FOR HOUSING PROJECT. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FULFILL THE BASIC CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80IB(10) AND THAT IS WHY THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WAS DISALLOWED. H OWEVER, THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE A.O. IS NOT CORRECT. FIRSTLY, HE HAS NOT CLEARLY POINTED OUT WHICH OF THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 80IB(10) ARE NOT FULFILLED BY THE APPELLANT. AS REGARDING HIS AVERMENT THAT SECTION 80IB(10) USES THE WORD APPROVAL AN D NOT APPROVALS FOR HOUSING PROJECT IT APPEAR THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT PROPERLY GONE THROUGH THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10). THE WORD APPROVAL CAN BE TAKEN AND CONSIDERED AS SINGULAR AND ALSO MULTIPLES WHEN MORE THAN ONE PROJECTS ARE THERE. IN T HIS CONNECTION, SPECIFIC REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE SECTION 80IB(10) AND THE EXPLANATION THERE BELOW THE EXPLANATION READS AS UNDER: - (I) IN A CASE WHERE THE APPROVAL IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING PROJECT IS OBTAINED MORE THAN ONCE, SUCH HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE BUILDING PLAN OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS FIRST APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY . (II) THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMPLETIO N CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY . THUS, FROM (I) ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT MORE THAN ONE APPROVALS HAS ALSO BEEN ENVISAGED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN THE ACT AND THAT IS WHY IT IS MENTIONED IN A CASE WHERE THE A PPROVAL IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING PROJECT IS OBTAINED MORE THAN ONCE. THUS, THERE IS NO BAR IN THE ACT FOR OBTAINING MORE THAN ONE APPROVAL. THE BASIC FACT IS THAT THE A.O. IS TO SEE WHETHER THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 80IB(10) ARE CUMULATIVELY FULFILLE D OR NOT? HERE, IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT, THE HOUSING PROJECT LAY OUT PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE ASSISTANT TOWN PLANNER TO RMC ON 30.03.2002 AS ALSO BY THE COLLECT, RAJKOT 5 ITA 13 /RJT/2012 ON 17/04/2002, WHICH IS MUCH BEFORE THE DATE 01.04.2004 WHICH IS THE CUT - OFF DA TE. AS FAR AS THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT IS CONCERNED, IT HAS NO RELEVANCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS ONLY SPEAK ABOUT THE APPROVAL OR DATE OF COMPLETION. AS FAR AS THE CONDITION OF THE AREA OF PROJECT IS CONCE RNED IT SHOULD BE MORE THAN ONE ACRE, HERE IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT THE PROJECT MANINAGAR HAVING 119 UNITS WAS CONSTRUCTED ON AN AREA OF 3.33 ACRES. SIMILARLY, THE CONDITION REGARDING BUILT UP AREA PER UNIT SHOULD BE LESS THAN 1500 SQ. FT. AND THERE IS N O DISPUTE REGARDING THAT IN THE APPELLANTS CASE ALSO BECAUSE ALL THE 119 UNITS ARE HAVING LESS THAN AREA OF 1500 SQ. FT. AS REGARDING THE DATE OF COMPLETION IT HAS BEEN LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80IB(10) THAT THE CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 3 1.03.2008. HERE, IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT, IT IS FOUND THAT MOST OF THE UNITS HAVE B EEN COMPLETED BEFORE 31.03.2008. HOWEVER, IT IS FOUND THAT OUT OF 119 UNITS, CONSTRUCTION OF SOME OF THE UNITS WAS COMPLETED AFTER 31.03.2008 AS SHOWN IN THE TABLE ON PAGE 7 & 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ARGUMENT OF THE AR OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ONLY 21 UNITS HAVE BEEN SOLD AND IN CASE OF ALL THESE UNITS CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED BEFORE 31.03.2008. HOWEVER, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE UNITS CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH HAS BEEN COMPLETED AFTER 31.03.2008 WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFIT U/S 80IB(10) IN ANY YEAR. FROM THE COPIES OF THE COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RMC IT IS FOUND THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN ISSUED IN THE NAME OF APPELLANT - FIRM M/S. B.M. & BROTHERS FOR THE HOUSING PROJECT KNOWN AS MANINAGAR ON RAIYA ROAD AND THE SAME IS GIVEN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS. FURTHER ALSO BROCHURE ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT - FIRM SAYS THAT MANINAGAR IS A RESIDENTIAL H OUSING PROJECT WHEREIN LAY OUT PLAN ALSO SHOWS THAT VARIOUS HOUSES ARE CONSTRUCTED ON ADJOINING PLOTS FROM SR. NO.1 TO 119 AS PER THE APPROVED LAY OUT PLAN GIVING PLACE FOR ROADS AND PUBLIC PLOTS. THESE FACTORS ALSO INDICATE THAT IT IS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSIN G PROJECT KNOWN AS MANINAGAR HAVING COMPOSITE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE APPELLANT ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF VANDANA PROPERTIES [27 DTR (MUM) 282 (2009)], WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE 6 ITA 13 /RJT/2012 TRIBUNAL THAT THE APPROVAL FOR SEPARATE BUILDI NGS CAN BE GRANTED AND THAT WILL NOT A FFECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, THE HONBLE ITAT, BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF BRIGADE ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. (119 TT) 269) HAS HELD THAT ALTHOUGH SEPARATE APPROVALS ARE OBTAINED FOR DIFFER ENT UNITS, IF PARTICULAR UNIT SATISFIED THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) DEDUCTION IS TO BE GRANTED. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE LEGAL ISSUE INVOLVED, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT FULFILLS ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/ S80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND THAT THE A.O.S AVERMENT THAT ON THE BASIS OF MULTIPLE APPROVALS 80IB DEDUCTION CAN BE DISALLOWED IS HELD TO BE INCORRECT. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE BY THE APPELLANT U/S 80IB IS ALLOWED AND THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.1, 45,67,940/ - IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DELETED. HOWEVER, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO SEE IF THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY UNIT IS COMPLETED AFTER 31.03.2008 DURING THE YEAR THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT ON THE SALE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE 80IB(10) DEDUCTION. SIMILARLY, FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR SUBSEQUENT TO A.Y. 2009 - 09 ALSO HE SHOULD KEEP IN MIND THAT WHATEVER UNITS WHICH ARE SOLD AFTER A.Y.2008 - 09 ALSO WHERE DATE OF COMPLETION IS AFTER 31.03.2008 NO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) SHOULD BE ALLOWED OUT OF ELIGIBLE PROFIT. ACCORDINGLY , THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FILED THE STATEMENT OF FACTS WHICH READS AS UNDER: - DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FULFILL THE CONDITION LAID DOWN FOR ENJOYING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) THEREFORE, AFTER GIVING EXHAUSTIVE FINDING, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE AO HAS NOT CLEARLY POINTED OUT WHICH OF THE CONDITION LAID DOWN U/S 80IB(10). THE LD. CIT(A), ON PAGE NO.9, IN SUB - PARA 3.4, HAS QUOTED SUB - SECTION (I) AND (II) OF SECTION 80IB(10) AND INFERRED THAT MORE THAN ONE APPROVALS HA S BEEN ENVISAGED BY THE LEGISLATURE. IN FACT, THESE SUB SECTIONS ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE CLAUSE OF 7 ITA 13 /RJT/2012 COMPLETING THE PROJECT WITHIN FOUR YEARS, I.E. IF THE LAY OUT PLAN HAS BEEN REVISED, THEN, IN THAT CASE FINAL APPROVAL OF LAYOUT PLAN IS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE CLAUSE OF COMPLETING THE PROJECT WITHIN FOUR YEARS. IT MAY FURTHER BE MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED THE APPROVAL IN PIECE MEAL AND NOT AS A WHOLE PROJECT, THEREFORE, NONE OF THE APPROVAL FULFILLED THE CONDITION OF SEC. 80IB(10) . THE LD. CI T(A) RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF BRIGADE ENTERPRISES PVT LTD 119 TTJ 269 WHERE IN THE ITAT JUDGED THAT IN A CASE WHERE ALL THOUGH SEPARATE APPROVAL ARE OBTAINED FOR DIFFERENT UNITS, IF PARTICULAR UNIT SATISFY THE CONDI TION OF SEC 80IB, THAN DEDUCTION IS TO BE GRANTED. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IN THE INSTANCE CASE THE SAID DECISION IS NOT SQUARELY APPLICABLE AS NONE OF THE APPROVALS FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB. WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION, O N PAGE NO.11 OF THE APPEAL ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE AO IS DIRECTED TO SEE IF THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY UNIT IS COMPLETED AFTER 31.03.2008, DURING THE YEAR THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT ON THE SALE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE 80IB(10) DEDUCTION IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, BECAUSE THE AO HAS NO POWERS TO CONDUCT INQUIRY WHILE GIVING APPEAL EFFECT. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, AS THE DIRECTIONS ARE OF THE NATURE OF A SSESSMENT ORDER BEING SET - ASIDE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) - I IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, MOST HUMBLY IT IS PRAYED BEFORE YOUR HONOUR THAT THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE ANNULLED AND THAT THE ACTION O F THE AO BE UPHELD. 6. IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL , THE LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7. IN REPLY, THE LD AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT (A). HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS IN ( A ) ITO V. AIR DEVELOPERS (2009) 319 ITR (A.T.) 167; ( B ) SAROJ SALES ORGANIZATION V. ITO (2008) 3 8 ITA 13 /RJT/2012 DTR 494; ( C ) B.K. PATE ENTERPRISES V. DCIT (2009 ) 28 DTR 451 ; AND ( D ) DCIT V. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. (2008) 014 DTR 0 371. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PURSUED THE MATERIAL S ON RECORDS. THE LD CIT(A) HAS GIVEN COGENT REASONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS DECISION. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) READ WITH EXPLANATION THERETO, WE ARE SATISFIE D THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) CANNOT BE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT MULTIPLE APPROVALS HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING PROJECT INSTEAD OF ONE APPROVAL FOR THE ENTIRE HOUSING PROJECT. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO RIGHTL Y HELD THAT THE LAY OUT PLAN WAS APPROVED BY THE ASSISTANT TOWN PLANNER OF RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ALSO BY COLLECTOR, RAJKOT ON 17.04.2002 , I.E. , BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF CUT - OFF DATE BEING 01.04.2004. T HE APPROVAL OF THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS THUS OBTA INED W E LL BEFORE THE CUT - OFF DATE. AS REGARDS THE AREA OF THE HOUSING PROJECT, THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT 119 UNITS WERE CONSTRUCTED ON AN AREA OF 3.33 ACRES AND THAT THE BUILT UP AREA OF EACH CONSTRUCTED UNIT WAS LESS THAN 1500 SQ. FT. AS REGARDS COMPLETION, THE LD CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT CONSTRUCTION OF MOST UNITS WERE COMPLETED BEFORE 31.03.2008. THE LD CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) TO ONLY THAT PORTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT WHICH HAS BEEN COMPLETED TILL 31.03.2 008. IN OUR VIEW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) TO THE EXTENT OF COMPLETION OF PROJECT TILL 31.03.2008. THE DIRECTION OF THE LD CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DENY THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROJECT WHICH HAS BEEN COMPLETED AFTER 31.03.2008 IS THEREFORE IN ORDER. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. O 19 .04 . 2013 O ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 19 .0 4. 201 3 SD/ - SD/ - ( E.. [ / T. K. SHARMA) ( .. RC / D. K. SRIVASTAVA) S C / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER RAJKOT: 19 .04.2 013 BT 9 ITA 13 /RJT/2012 3 PP' I / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. / APPELLANT - ITO, WARD - 1(1), RAJKOT 2. R / RESPONDENT - M/S. B M & BROTHERS, MEGHRAJ, NILKANTH NAGAR MAIN ROAD, UNIVERSITY ROAD, NR . GORDHAN DAIRY, RAJKOT 3. Y J / CONCERNED CIT - I, RAJKOT 4. J - / CIT (A) - I, RAJKOT 5. V RY, E Y, / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. [ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , TRUE COPY PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, RAJKOT