Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-5 Pune, Pune V. Surana Mutha Bhansali Developers, PUNE

ITA 1359/PUN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2977 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.1359/PUN./2023 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2014-2015 The DCIT, Circle-5, 3 rd Floor, PMT Bldg., Shankar Sheth Road, Swargate, Pune – 411 037. Maharashtra. vs. Surana Mutha Bhansali Developers, 236, Patil Plaza, Near Saras Baugh, Mitra Mangal Chowk, Pune – 411009 Maharashtra. PAN ABGFS1894K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Abdhesh Kumar Jha For Assessee : Shri Rajiv Thakkar Date of Hearing : 12.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 16.04.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2014-2015, rises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057118954(1), dated 17.10.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the assessee was 2 ITA.No.1359/PUN./2023 eligible for deduction of Rs.2,48,05,458/- u/s 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on pro-rata basis when the built-up area of 40 Flats have exceeded the area of 1500 S. Ft., thereby violating the provisions contained in clause (c) of Section 80-1B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the area of terrace (open to sky), which was sold with flat and having private access is not to be included in computation of built-up area for calculating the built-up area for the purpose of clause (c) of Sec 80-IB(10) of I.T. Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the assessee was eligible for deduction of Rs.2,48,05,458/- u/s 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ignoring the fact that the assessee has violated the provisions of the Section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the Residential housing project known as "Shree Shantinagar" at S.No. 63, Hissa No. 1/3A, ¼, 1/5, 1/6, 1/7, Kondhawa Budnik, Pune-48. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or alter any ground(s) of appeal at the time of hearing before the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Both the learned representatives next invited our attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion upholding the 3 ITA.No.1359/PUN./2023 assessee’s sec.80IB(10) proportionate deduction claim confined to the eligible residential units only reading as under : 4. Suffice to say, the clinching fact which has emerged during the course of hearing is that the instant sole issue of sec.80IB(10) deduction on proportionate basis, is no more res integra as the earlier learned coordinate bench’s order dated 16.10.2019 ITA.No.568/PUN./2017 pertaining to the very residential housing project viz., “Shree Shantinagar” has already rejected the Revenue’s very contentions. 4 ITA.No.1359/PUN./2023 5. Faced with the situation, learned DR vehemently argued that the Revenue is in appeal before the hon’ble jurisdictional high court against the above order. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is no exception evident qua the instant sole issue of sec.80IB(10) deduction on proportionate basis in assessment year 2012-13 vis-à-vis the assessment year 2014-15 before us. We thus adopt judicial consistency to uphold the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion partly accepting the assessee’s impugned claim in above terms. 7. Mr. Abdhesh Jha next tooks us to the Revenue’s 2 nd to 4 th substantive grounds that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deciding “open terrace” issue in assessee’s favour. We do not see any such adjudication in the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion which could leave the Revenue aggrieved. It’s 2 nd to 4 th substantive grounds stand rejected in very terms. No other argument or ground has been pressed/raised before us. 8. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.04.2024. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 16 th April, 2024 VBP/- 5 ITA.No.1359/PUN./2023 Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.