M/s. Varun Developers, Pune V. Dy. Comm. of Income-tax, Pune

ITA 1624/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1990 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 80IB; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER , AND SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA.NO.1624/PN/2011 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09) M/S.VARUN DEVELOPERS, AUNDH BAZAR ROAD, NEAR SAKAL NAGAR, BANER, PUNE 411007. .. APPELLANT PAN: AACFV8009J VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PUNE. .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ACHAL SHARMA DATE OF HEARING : 14.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.03.2013 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFORMING THE DENIAL O F THE DEDUCTIONS OF RS.93,93,614/- IN RESPECT OF THE PROJ ECT HARSH PARADISE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CO MPLETED THE SAID PROJECT BY 31 ST MARCH, 2008. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMPLETED THE SAID PROJECT BY 31 ST MARCH, 2008 AND ALSO HAD NOT RECEIVED THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FR OM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY TILL THE DATE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS N OT ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10). 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT IN CLUDING THE FOUR FLATS OF BUILDING H 4 AND SIMPLY BECAUSE THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF THE FOUR FLATS WAS NOT RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A VALID GROUND FOR DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTIO N U/S.80IB(10). 2 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS, THE ASSESSE E SUBMITS THAT THE ELIGIBLE HOUSING PROJECT QUALIFYING FOR DE DUCTION U/S.80IB(10) SHOULD BE TAKEN OF THE BUILDING EXCEPT BUILDING H-4 AND THE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE PROF ITS OF SUCH PROJECT. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS, THE ASSESSE E SUBMITS THAT THE DEDUCTION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED PROPO RTIONATELY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITS FOR WHICH THE COMPLETION CE RTIFICATE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY TILL 31 ST MARCH, 2008. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS, EXECUTING SCHEMES FOR RESIDENTIAL/COM MERCIAL PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE FIRM FILED THE RETURN OF IN COME DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.93,93,614/- U /S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,33,96,580/- REJECTING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTIO N U/S.80IB(10). BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS T WO ONGOING PROJECTS VIZ. HARSH VIHAR AND HARSH PARADISE. PROJ ECT HARSH VIHAR IS A COMMERCIAL PROJECT WITH 38 SHOPS AND HARSH PAR ADISE IS A RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX WITH 175 FLATS. THE DISALLOWANC E OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) AMOUNTING TO RS.93,93,614/- BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS IN RESPECT OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, I.E., HAR SH PARADISE. 3. THE ABOVE MENTIONED HOUSING PROJECT IS ON A TOTA L LAND AREA OF 8164.20 SQ.MTRS. THIS LAND IS LOCATED AT AUNDH, PU NE, WHICH WAS UNDER RESERVATION AT RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, AND TH E SAME WAS DE- RESERVED IN THE YEAR 2003-04. THE ASSESSEE ENTERE D INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH PURANIK FAMILY ON 09.02. 2004, WHICH WAS DULY REGISTERED ON 20.07.2004. ON THIS VERY PL OT OF LAND HAVING AREA OF 8164.20 SQ.MTRS., THE PROJECT HARSH PARADIS E HAS BEEN DEVELOPED. THE FIRST LAYOUT PLAN WAS SANCTIONED BY PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ON 19.03.2002. THE SAID HOUSING PROJEC T CONSISTS OF FOUR BUILDINGS VIZ. H-1, H-2, H-3, H-4 AND G BUILDI NG, WHICH IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE PMC TO BE ALLOTTED TO THE WEAKER SECTI ON OF THE SOCIETY. THE PLAN OF HOUSING PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE LOC AL AUTHORITY ON 28.05.2003 WHEREIN CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS H-1, H -2, H-3 & G AND FIRST FLOOR OF H-4 BUILDING WAS SANCTIONED. TH E ASSESSEE FURTHER TRIED TO PURCHASE TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ( TDR) FOR 3 CONSTRUCTION OF REMAINING FLOORS OF H-4 BUILDING. AS THE PROJECT WAS SANCTIONED BEFORE 01.04.2004, THE DUE DATE OF COMPL ETION OF THE PROJECT WAS 31.03.2008. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT IT HAD RECEIVED THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF H-1, H-2 , H-3 & G BUILDING ON 19.03.2008 AND 06.03.2007. HOWEVER, WI TH RESPECT TO THE BUILDING H-4, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE T DR COULD NOT BE PURCHASED AND, THEREFORE, THE BUILDING H-4 COULD NO T BE COMPLETED AND HENCE THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE PMC FOR THE H-4 BUILDING HAVING FOUR FLATS. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD I.E ., 31.03.2008. HE THEREFORE SOUGHT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRM HAS ALMOST COMPLETED THE HO USING PROJECT AND THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) IS IN RESPECT OF THE FLATS FOR WHICH COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IS RECEIVED BEFORE 31.03.2008. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SECTION 80IB(10) IS BENEFICIAL PROVISION TO THE ASSESSEE AND A BENEFICI AL PROVISION IS ALSO TO BE CONSTRUCTED LIBERALLY AND IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION FU RNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HELD THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETED BEFORE THE STIPUL ATED DATE, I.E., 31.03.2008 AND SO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10). ACCORDINGLY THE SAME WAS D ISALLOWED. IN APPEAL, THE SAME WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) AND SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT HARSH PARADISE PROJECT IS ON A TOTAL LAND AREA OF 8,164.2 0 SQ.MTRS. THE FIRST LAYOUT PLAN WAS SANCTIONED BY PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ON 19.03.2002. THE SAID HOUSING PROJECT CONSISTS OF F OUR BUILDINGS VIZ. H-1, H-2, H-3, H-4 AND G BUILDING. THE SAID PLAN F OR HOUSING PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON 28.0 5.2003 WHEREIN CONSTRUCTION OF WHOLE H-1, H-2, H-3 & G BUILDING, A LONGWITH FIRST 4 FLOOR OF H-4 BUILDING WERE SANCTIONED. SUBSEQUENTL Y THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO PURCHASE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR CONSTRUCTI ON OF REMAINING FLOORS OF H-4 BUILDING. AS THE PROJECT WAS SANCTIO NED BEFORE 01.04.2004, THE DUE DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJE CT WAS 31.03.2008. UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED TH E COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF H-1, H-2, H-3 & G BUILDING ON 19.03. 2008 AND 06.03.2007 I.E., PRIOR TO THE DATE STIPULATED UNDER RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. HOWEVE R, WITH RESPECT TO THE BUILDING H-4, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE T DR COULD NOT BE PURCHASED AND, THEREFORE, THE BUILDING H-4 COULD NO T BE COMPLETED AS PER SANCTION PLAN AND HENCE THE COMPLETION CERTI FICATE WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE PMC FOR THE H-4 BUILDING HAVING FOUR FLATS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT PROJECT IS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE A CT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED THE PROJE CT AND ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF H-1, H-2, H-3 & G BUILDINGS. THE TOTAL AREA OF THE SAME IS 6,722 SQ. MTRS. WHICH IS WITHIN THE PARAMETERS LAID DOWN IN PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, SAME WAS COMPLETED BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME, I.E., 31.03.2008. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUC TION WITH REGARD TO COMPLETED PORTION OF THE PROJECT, I.E., H-1, H-2 , H-3 & G BUILDINGS. FOR THIS PROPOSITION THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS ITAT, PUNE BENCH, IN THE CASE OF RUNWAL MULTIHOUSING PVT. LTD. IN ITA.NOS.1015, 1016 AND 1017/PN/2011 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE I SSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 18. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT (A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAV E ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED THE PERMISSI ON FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS A, B, C, D, E, F AND 17 R OW HOUSES ON 12-12-2001. THE ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTED BUILDING N OS. A,C, D AND E AND THE 17 ROW HOUSES AND DROPPED THE IDEA OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING NOS. B AND F BEING UNECONO MICAL AND HAD NOT SUBMITTED ANY REVISED PLAN TO PMC. ALTHOUG H THE 5 ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ON 22-0 1-2004, THE SAME WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 31-03- 2008. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT DEDUCTION U/S.80IB( 10) CANNOT BE AVAILED OF BY THE ASSESSEE SINCE IT HAS NOT CONS TRUCTED ALL THE SIX BUILDINGS AND 17 ROW HOUSES FOR WHICH PERMI SSION WAS GRANTED AND COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT OBTAINED BEFORE 31- 03-2008. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS CONSTRUCTED BUILDING NOS. A, C , D AND E AND 17 ROW HOUSES AND BUILDING NOS. B & F BEING NOT FEASIBLE WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS DROPPED TH E IDEA OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAME. IT IS ALSO THE SUBMISSIO N OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS APPLIE D FOR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ON 22-01-2004 AND SINCE THE PMC HAS A LEGAL PROBLEM, WHICH IS SUBJUDICE, THE PMC IS NOT A BLE TO GRANT THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. IT IS ALSO THE SUBMISS ION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT CORPORATION H AS STARTED LEVYING MUNICIPAL TAXES, THE FLAT OWNERS HAVE START ED PAYING ELECTRICITY BILLS AND THE PROJECT ON WHICH BUILDING NOS. A, C, D AND E AND 17 ROW HOUSES ARE CONSTRUCTED ARE ON A PL OT OF AREA OF MORE THAN 1 ACRE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENT ITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) ON THE 4 BUILDINGS AND 17 RO W HOUSES WHICH IT HAS COMPLETED. 19. WE FIND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI PRADEEP AMRU TLAL RUNWAL IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S.133A HAS REPLIED TO QUESTION NOS. 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 AS UNDER : Q.7. HAVE YOU RECEIVED THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM PMC FOR RUNWAL PARADISE PROJECT ? ANS. THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FOR ROW HOUSES 7 TO 18 WAS RECEIVED. HOWEVER FOR OTHER BUILDINGS ON RUNWA L PARADISE PROJECT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE COMPLETIO N CERTIFICATE AS ON TODAY THOUGH WE HAVE APPLIED FOR THE SAME. Q.8. WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED IN RESPE CT OF ALL THE BUILDINGS AS PER REVISED PLAN DATED 10-01-2 003, COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE NO.1372? ANS. CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED BEFORE 31 ST MARCH 2008 IN THE ENTIRE SCHEME RUNWAL PARADISE TO THE EXTENT THA T WE WANT TO BUILD AND ENJOY THE FSI OF THE PROJECT AND THE AREA USED SO IS ABOVE 1 ACRE. Q.9. IF THE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED BEFORE 31 ST MARCH 2008, WHY YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED COMPLETION CERTIFIC ATE FROM PMC FOR ALL BUILDINGS IN RUNWAL PARADISE PROJE CT AS ON TODAY? 6 ANS. THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ARE DEEMED RECEIVED SINCE WE HAVE APPLIED FOR THE SAME, BUT SINCE THE MATTER IS SUBJUDICE THE PMC IS NOT ABLE TO GRANT THE COMPLETI ON CERTIFICATE. THE VERY LOCAL AUTHORITY WHICH IS RES PONSIBLE FOR GRANTING THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE HAS A LEGAL PROBLEM WHICH IS SUBJUDICE. Q.10. AS STATED ANSWERING THE QUESTION NO.9, PLEASE STATE WHEN YOU HAVE APPLIED FOR COMPLETION CERTIFIC ATE IN RESPECT OF RUNWAL PARADISE PROJECT AND ALSO SUBMIT THE RELEVANT APPLICATIONS? ANS. WE HAVE APPLIED FOR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT. WE ARE SUBMITTING HEREWITH THE APP LICATION FOR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 22-01-2004VIDE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE NO.1372 DATED 10-01-2002 A S PER ANNEXURE C. THE COPIES OF ANY FURTHER APPLIC ATION, IF ANY, WE WILL SUBMIT THE SAME ON 2 ND JUNE 2008. Q.12. AS PER REVISED BUILDING LAYOUT SANCTIONED ON 10-01-2003, YOU GOT APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BU ILDINGS A TO F AND ROW HOUSES 1 TO 18 IN RUNWAL PARADISE PR OJECT. HOWEVER AS SEEN FROM THE LIST OF FLAT HOLDERS SUBMI TTED BY YOU AS ANNEXURE D AND ALSO THE INSPECTION CARRIED OUT AT THE SITE OF RUNWAL PARADISE LOCATED AT S.NO.981, AT PAUD ROAD, KOTHRUD, PUNE, THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS B AND F IS YET TO BE COMPLETED. PLEASE GIVE YOUR COMMENT? ANS. YES, I AGREE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING S B AND F HAVE NOT BEEN CARRIED OUT WITH A PERFECT UNDERSTA NDING IN THE MIND THAT WE WANTED TO GIVE UP THESE TWO WIN GS. IN CASE THESE WINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED THEY W OULD HAVE BEEN VERY SHABBY AND BEEN PLACE FOR NON-HYGIEN E IN THE ENTIRE PROJECT. LOOKING AT THE MERITS AND DEME RITS THESE WINGS WERE NOT CONSTRUCTED. FURTHER, BUILDIN G JUST ONE FLOOR WAS ECONOMICALLY UNVIABLE. 20. SO FAR AS THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE TH AT COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM PMC HAS NOT BEEN OBTAIN ED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 31-03-2008 WE FIND THE ASSESSEE THR OUGH HIS ARCHITECT VIDE APPLICATION DATED 22-01-2004 HAS APP LIED TO PMC FOR OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE. (PAGE 119 OF THE PAP ER BOOK). THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE THAT THE PMC HAS NOT YET REJECTED THE SAID APPLICATION T ILL DATE COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. THE FURT HER SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THE FLAT OWNERS/ROW HOUSE OWNERS HAVE BEEN GIVEN POSSES SION BETWEEN 26-10-2002 TO 15-01-2007, I.E. PRIOR TO 31- 03-2008 COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DR (PAGE 5 5 TO 63 OF THE PAPER BOOK). THE LEARNED DR ALSO COULD NOT CON TROVERT THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT PMC 7 HAS STARTED LEVYING MUNICIPAL TAXES AND THE ELECTRI CITY METERS ARE IN THE NAME OF THE FLAT OWNERS WHO HAVE STARTED PAYING ELECTRICITY BILLS. 6. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF RUNWAL MULTIHOUSING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISCUSSED THE P UNE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIO N VS. ACIT ITA NO. 57 AND 1287/PN/2010 ORDER DATED 27-09-2012 WHER EIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : 12. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS. QUITE CLEARLY, THE DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO THE COMPLETI ON CERTIFICATE OF BUILDING 'E' HAVING BEEN ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHOR ITY I.E. PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ON 5-5-2008. SUB-CLAUSE (I) OF CLAUSE (A) TO SECTION 80-IB(10) REQUIRES THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT IN QUESTION IS TO BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 31-3-20 08. CLAUSE (II) OF EXPLANATION BELOW SECTION 80-IB(10)(A) PRESCRIBE S THAT THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJE CT SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMPLETION CERTIF ICATE IN RESPECT OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS ISSUED BY THE LO CAL AUTHORITY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 5-5-2008 AND HENCE THE CASE SET UP BY THE REVENUE THAT THE COMPLETION IS BEYOND THE MANDATED DATE OF 31-3-2008. IN THIS BACKGROUND, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR OBTAINING THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF BUILDING ' E' ON 12-3-2008. FROM THE DISCUSSION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN THE FACTUAL ASSERTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED, IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE ASSERTED THAT BEFORE 31-3-2008, THE CONSTR UCTION OF BUILDING WAS COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS; THAT ELECTRI CAL CONNECTION WAS PROVIDED TO EACH FLAT OWNER; ROAD WAS COMPLETE; WATER AND DRAINAGE CONNECTION WAS AVAILABLE; SEWERAGE SYSTEM WAS OPERATING; CLUB HOUSE WAS FUNCTIONAL; ETC. THE ASSE SSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAD ALSO INITI ATED PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS FOR EACH OF THE FLATS AND THE SAME DEMONSTRATED THAT ALL THE FLATS IN THE BUILDING WER E COMPLETE. IN FACT, IN PARA 6.9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT 'THE FACTS THAT THE FLATS WERE COMPLET ED AND POSSESSION GIVEN WILL NOT COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE'. THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUPP ORTS THE ASSERTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT FACTUALLY SPEAK ING CONSTRUCTION OF FLATS IN BUILDING 'E' WAS ALSO COMP LETE AND POSSESSION HANDED OVER TO THE ACTUAL USER/CUSTOMERS PRIOR TO 31-3-2008. PERTINENTLY, ON THE BASIS OF THE ARCHITE CT'S CERTIFICATE CONFIRMING COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING, THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE TO THE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ON 12-3-2008. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT B EFORE US THAT THE LOCAL AUTHORITY I.E. PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPOR ATION DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO ASSESSEE'S APPLI CATION AND THE CERTIFICATE FOR BUILDING 'E' WAS THEREAFTER ISS UED ON 5-5-2008. 8 THE MOOT QUESTION IS AS TO WHETHER IN SUCH A SITUAT ION CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE'S PROJECT DID NOT COMPLY WIT H THE CONDITION PRESCRIBED IN SUB-CLAUSE (I) OF CLAUSE (A ) TO SECTION 80- IB(10) OF THE ACT WHEREBY THE CONSTRUCTION WAS TO B E COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 31-3-2008. SOMEWHAT SIMILAR SITUATION WAS CONSIDERED BY OUR CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN SAMUTHA AWAS LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN ALSO ON THE STREN GTH OF ARCHITECT'S CERTIFICATE, AN APPLICATION FOR OBTAINI NG COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS MOVED TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON 25- 2-2008 BUT IN ACTUALITY THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON 10-10-2008. THE TRIBUNAL NOTICED THAT THE DELAY IN ISSUING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS NO OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING ITS EARLIER DECISION S IN THE CASE OF M/S. SATISH BOHRA & ASSOCIATES VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 713 AND 714/PN/2010 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AND 2005-06 DATED 7-1- 2011; M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTIONS VS. ITO ITA NO. 243/PN/2010 FOR A.Y. 2006-07; DATED 6-12-2010 AND SANGHVI AND DOSHI ENTE RPRISES VS. ITO AND OTHERS ITA NO. 259 TO 263/MDS/2010 DATE D 19-5- 2011 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AND 2006-07 (TM) HAS CONCLUDE D AS FOLLOWS: 'FROM THE ABOVE, ONCE THIS IS CLEAR THAT T HE DATE THAT APPEARS ON THE ARCHITECT'S COMPLETION CERTIFICATE F ILED BEFORE THE LOCAL AUTHORITY IS RELEVANT ONE. IN THE INSTANT CAS E, THE SAID DATE IS 25- 3-2008 AND THE ASSESSEE FILED REQUISITE FORM BEFORE THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES INTIMATING THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. THE SAID CERTIFICATE/INTIMATION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LOC AL AUTHORITY WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS OR OBJECTIONS. LOCAL AUTHORI TY HAS NOT RAISED ANY QUERIES ON THE QUALITY CONSTRUCTION OF T HE BUILDING OR THE COMPLETION OF THE SAME AS PER THE PLANS APPROVE D BY SUCH AUTHORITY. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR OPINION, T HE DELAY IN OBTAINING THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ON 10-10-2008 IS CERTAINLY NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND OBTAINING THE SAID CERTIFICATE BEFORE 31-3-2008 IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE'S JOB INCLUDES THE COMPLETION OF THE BUILDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND INTIMATIO N OF THE SAME TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BY WAY OF FILING THE RE QUISITE FORMS TOGETHER WITH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY T HE ARCHITECT, THE SPECIALIST IN THE MATTER AND THE ASSESSEE HAS D ONE HIS JOB SCRUPULOUSLY IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, THE LOCAL AUTHO RITY HAS NEITHER OBJECTED TO THE SAID APPLICATION OF THE ASS ESSEE AND THE ARCHITECT BY RAISING ANY OBJECTIONS FOR ACCEPTED BY ISSUE OF SAID COMPLETION CERTIFICATE TILL 10-10-2008. THEREFORE, THE DELAY IN GRANT OF THE SAID CERTIFICATE IS CERTAINLY NOT ATTR IBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE I S NOT DEFAULTER ON THIS ACCOUNT AND THUS, THE AO HAS ERRE D IN DENYING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY , THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS TO BE REVERSED. THUS, THE GROUNDS RA ISED IN THE APPEAL ARE ALLOWED' 13. THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS CLEAR LY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ALSO. I N THE PRESENT CASE, THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS APPLIE D FOR 9 BEFORE 31-3-2008 I.E. ON 12-3-2008. IT IS UNDISPUTA BLE THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN APPROVED B Y THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WITHOUT RAISING ANY AMENDMENT OR OBJECTION, AS HAS BEEN ASSERTED BY THE ASSESSEE ALL ALONG AND THE DELAYED ISSUANCE OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFIC ATE BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON 5-5-2008, ALBEIT AFTER THE M ANDATED DATE OF 31-3-2008 CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ASSES SEE. IN THIS BACKGROUND OF THE MATTER, WE THEREFORE, FIND A MPLE FORCE IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DENIAL OF DE DUCTION U/S 80-IB(10) ON SUCH SCORE IS UNCALLED FOR. IN CON CLUSION THEREFORE, IN THE INSTANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND, WE HO LD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITION OF COM PLETING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT WITHIN THE MANDATED DATE OF 31-3- 2008 EVEN WITH REGARD TO BUILDING 'E', FOLLOW ING THE PARITY OF THE REASONING LID DOWN IN THE CASE OF HIN DUSTAN SAMUTHA AWAS LTD. (SUPRA). . 14. SUB-CLAUSE (I) OF CLAUSE (A) TO SECTION 80-IB(1 0) OF THE ACT REQUIRES THAT THE UNDERTAKING, DEVELOPING AND B UILDING A HOUSING PROJECT 'COMPLETES SUCH CONSTRUCTION' ON OR BEFORE 31-3-2008. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSEE HAS FACTUALLY ASSERTED RIGHT FROM THE STAGE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING 'E' WAS COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS AS PER SANCTIONED PLAN AND ALL THE FLATS WERE HANDED OVER TO THE ACTUAL USERS/CUSTOMER S PRIOR TO 31-3-2008. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID FA CTUAL POSITION WHICH HAS REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED, IN OUR VIEW, ON A PLAIN READING OF SUB-CLAUSE (I) OF CLAUSE (A) TO SECTION 80-IB(10) THE CONDITION PRESCRIBED THEREIN IS FULFI LLED., INASMUCH AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING 'E' WAS CO MPLETE BEFORE 31-3-2008. HOWEVER, ON THE READING OF CLAUSE (II) OF THE EXPLANATION BELOW SEC. 80-IB(10)(A) OF THE ACT, IT EMERGES THAT THE COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF A HO USING PROJECT IS TO BE TAKEN TO BE THE DATE ON WHICH COMP LETION CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, WHICH IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ISSUED ON 5-5-2008 I.E. BEYOND THE STIPULATED DATE OF 31-3-2008. THE MOOT QUESTION IS IN CASE THE CONDITION OF COMPLETION CONSTRUCTION CONTAINED IN THE SUBSTANTIVE SECTION 80-0IB(10)(A)(I) IS FACTUALLY F OUND TO BE COMPLIED WITH, CAN THE CONTENTS OF THE EXPLANATION CLAUSE (II) THEREOF, ALTER THE SITUATION? CAN AN EXPLANATI ON APPENDED TO A SECTION, ENLARGE THE SCOPE OF THE MAI N SECTION SO AS TO MAKE IT MORE ONEROUS FOR A TAX- PA YER? BE THAT AS IT MAY, WE DO NOT DWELL ON THIS ASPECT ANY FURTHER, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR NECESSARY RELIEF BECAUSE THE CONDITION PRESCRIBED I N SECTION 80-IB(10)(A)(I) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN COMPLIE D WITH IN VIEW OF THE STATED PRECEDENTS. WE THEREFORE, SET AS IDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT AND HOLD THAT TH E ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/ S 80- IB(10) ON THE STRENGTH OF NON-ISSUANCE OF THE COMPL ETION CERTIFICATE FOR BUILDING 'E' BY THE PUNE MUNICIPAL 10 CORPORATION BEFORE 31-3-2008, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. HE ALSO DREW ATTENTION OF BENCH THAT THE HONBLE GU JARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TARNETAR CORPORATION P VT. LTD., TAX APPEAL NO.1241/2011 DATED 12.09.2011 AS DISCUSSED I N RUNWAL MULTIHOUSING PVT. LTD.(SUPRA), HAS HELD AS UNDER: WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND CONTENTION, WE MAY RECO RD THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLETE THE HOUSING PROJECT WITHIN THE STATUTORY T IME FRAME. UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (I) OF CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 80IB( 10), THE ASSESSEE SINCE HAD GOT APPROVAL FOR THE HOUSING PRO JECTS FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE IST APRIL 2004 WAS REQUI RED TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION LATEST BY 31 ST MARCH 2008. RELYING ON EXPLANATION (II) TO CLAUSE (I), REVENUE CONTENDS TH AT SINCE BU PERMISSION WAS GRANTED AFTER MARCH 2008, THE CONSTR UCTION MUST BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AFTER SUCH DA TE. EXPLANATION (II) READS AS UNDER : (II) THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF SUCH HOUSING P ROJECT IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. CIT (APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL AFTER DETAILE D DISCUSSION CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SUCH REQUIRE MENT WAS NOT MANDATORY IN NATURE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION WELL BEFORE THE LAST DAT E, NAMELY 31 ST MARCH 2008 AND HAD ALSO SOLD SEVERAL UNITS WHICH WA S COMPLETED AND ACTUALLY OCCUPIED, AND IT ALSO APPLIE D FOR BU PERMISSION TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. THE LOCAL AUTHO RITY, HOWEVER, FOR TECHNICAL REASONS, AT ONE STAGE REJECTED SUCH A PPLICATION IN THE YEAR 2006 AND THEREAFTER UPON REVISED EFFORTS F ROM THE ASSESSEE GRANTED THE SAME BY ORDER DATED 19 TH MARCH 2009. WE HAVE PERUSED THE DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ISSUE. IN PARTICULAR, THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLE TED IN 2006. APPLICATION FOR BU PERMISSION TO THE MUNICIPAL AUTH ORITIES WAS FILED ON 15-02-2006 WHICH WAS REJECTED ON 1-07-06. SEVERAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS WERE OCCUPIED SINCE THE SAME WAS DONE WITHOUT NECESSARY PERMISSION. THE ASSESSEE HAD DON E WITHOUT NECESSARY PERMISSION. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PAID P ENALTY AND GOT SUCH OCCUPATION REGULARISED. SEVERAL TENEMENTS WERE SOLD LONG BEFORE THE LAST DATE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THEREFORE, THE FACT THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION WELL BEFORE 31 ST MARCH 2008 IS 11 NOT IN DOUBT. IT IS, OF COURSE, TRUE THAT FORMALLY BU PERMISSION WAS NOT GRANTED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY BY SUCH DATE. IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT EXPLANATION TO CLAUSE (A) TO SECT ION 80IB(10) LINKS THE COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION TO THE BU PERMISSION BEING GRANTED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, NOT EVERY CONDITION OF THE STATUTE CAN BE SEEN AS MANDATORY. IF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE THEREOF IS ESTABLISHED ON RE CORD, IN A GIVEN CASE, THE COURT MAY TAKE THE VIEW THAT MINOR DEVIATION THEREOF WOULD NOT VITIATE THE VERY PURPOSE FOR WHIC H DEDUCTION WAS BEING MADE AVAILABLE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FACTS ARE PECULIAR. THE A SSESSEE HAD NOT ONLY COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION TWO YEARS B EFORE THE FINAL DATE AND HAD APPLIED FOR BU PERMISSION. SUCH BU PERMISSION WAS NOT REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT CONS TRUCTION WAS NOT COMPLETED, BUT THE SOME OTHER TECHNICAL GRO UND. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, GRANTING BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION C ANNOT BE HELD TO BE ILLEGAL. IN THE RESULT, THE TAX APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ITAT, PUNE BENCH, IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN SAMUHA A WAS LTD. VS. ITO VIDE ITA NOS. 945 TO 950/PN/2010 ORDER DATED 30 -08-2011, WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN DISCUSSED IN RUNWAL MULTIHOUSIN G PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), HAS HELD AS UNDER : 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE VIEW POINTS OF THE PARTIES IN DISPUTED. WE FIND THAT IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESS EE THROUGH ITS ARCHITECT HAD FILED APPLICATION WITH THE AMC FOR IS SUANCE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ON 25-3-2008. REQUISITE FEE WAS ALSO PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. AMC DID NOT RAISE A NY OBJECTION TO THE SAID COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF THE ARCHITECT . THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DT.10-10-2008 HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE AM C ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID APPLICATION DT.25-3-2008. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFIC ATE IS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY I.E. AMC AND IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CONTROL AND IT IS BEYOND THE POWER OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE THE AMC ISSUE THE SAID COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE BEFORE 31.3.2008. WHAT WAS UNDER THE POWER AND CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ONL Y TO MOVE THE AMC FOR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FULFILLING ALL T HE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE AMC FOR ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THUS, THE D ELAY IN ISSUING THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE CANNOT BE ATTRIBU TED ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DENY THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS THAT THE PROJECT WAS NOT CO MPLETED BY 31- 3-2008, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS NO OBJECTION RAISE D BY THE AMC 12 REGARDING DEVIATION IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJ ECT APPROVED BY THE AMC. 8. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS CITED BY THE AS SESSEES REPRESENTATIVE AND FIND RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS ARE REQ UIRED TO BE EXTRACTED FOR COMPLETION OF THE ORDER. THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS. 9. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ITAT, PUNE BENCH, IN THE CASE OF M/S. SATISH BORA & ASSOC IATES VIDE ITA NOS. 713 & 714/PN/2010, WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN DISCUSS ED IN RUNWAL MULTIHOUSING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), HAS HELD AS UNDER: 19. . 1. IN THE CASE OF PMC, THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE I N PRESCRIBED FORM ISSUED BY THE LICENSED ARCHITECT ETC. WHO HAS SUPERVISED THE CONSTRUCTION IS FURNISHED WITH FOUR SETS OF COM PLETION PLAN UNDER RULE 7.6 OF THE DC RULES OF THE PMC. THEREAF TER PMC IS REQUIRED TO RETURN ONE OF THE SETS DULY CERTIFIED A S COMPLETION PLAN TO THE OWNER ALONG WITH THE ISSUE OF FULL OCCU PANCY CERTIFICATE AFTER INSPECTION OF THE WORK UNDER RULE 7.7 OF THE DC RULES. SINCE EXPLATION (II) TO SECTION 80IB(10)(A) OF THE I.T. ACT REQUIRES COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY TO BE TAKEN AS THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCT ION, A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING IN OUR VIEW IS THAT A COMPLE TION CERTIFICATE WHICH IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AFTER CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS OF CONSTRUCTION BY IT. IN CASE OF PMC, IT IS ONLY OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE WHICH IS ISSUED ALON GWITH CERTIFIED COMPLETION PLAN AFTER INSPECTION OF THE C ONSTRUCTION BY IT, WE HAVE TREATED THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF SUCH OC CUPANCY CERTIFICATE ALONGWITH CERTIFIED COMPLETION PLAN AS THE DATE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF THE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE REQUIREMENT OF EXPLANATION (II) TO SECTION 80IB(10)(A) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. SINCE INFACT PMC DO NOT ISSUE OCCUPANCY CERTIFIC ATE GENERALLY IN TIME AND WITH THIS UNDERSTANDING THE L EGISLATURE HAVE ALSO INTRODUCED A DEEMING PROVISION OF 21 DAYS TO PUT CONSTRAINT UPON PMC, WE AFTER DETAILED DELIBERATION IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS HAVE COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT IN CASE O F SMALL OBJECTIONS OF PMC RAISED AFTER EXPIRY OF DEEMING PE RIOD OF 21 DAYS UNDER RULE 7.7 OF DC RULES UNDER PMC, THE DATE WHEN THE APPLICANT ACQUIRED DEEMING SANCTION WILL BE TREATED AS THE DATE OF COMPLETION (OCCUPANCY) CERTIFICATE TO MEET OUT T HE REQUIREMENT OF EXPLANATION (II) TO SECTION 80IB (10 )(A) OF THE ACT. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE WHAT WOULD BE THE SMALL OBJECTIONS. IN BRIEF THOSE OBJECTIONS WHICH DO NOT AFFECT THE MAIN PROJECT AND ARE GENERALLY TEMPORARY CONSTR UCTIONS. 20. WE THUS WHILE SETTING ASIDE ORDERS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW DIRECT THE A.O TO ALLOW THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CON SIDERATION 13 TREATING THE REQUIRED DATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTR UCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT AS THE DATE WHEN ABOVE DISCUSSED DE EMING PROVISION PERIOD OF 21 DAYS EXPIRED I.E. 20.11.20. 10. HE AGAIN SUBMITTED THAT THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SANGHVI & DOSHI ENTERPRISE VIDE ITA NO. 259 TO 263/MDS/2010, AS DISCUSSED IN RUNWAL MULTIHOUSING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), HAS HELD AS UNDER: 24. NEXT OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE PROJECT HAD TO BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2008 AND SIN CE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE , THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. THE OBJECTION IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM CMDA IS DATED 13.6. 2008, I.E. THREE MONTHS AFTER THE DUE DATE FOR COMPLETING THE PROJECT. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT HAS TO BE NOTED THAT THE COMPLE TION CERTIFICATE IS TO BE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. THE QUESTI ON IS, WHETHER CMDA CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE A LOCAL AUTHORITY OR N OT. THIS ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JAIN HOUSING & CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. IN I TA NO.1369/MDS/2009 DATED 5.2.2010. IN THAT CASE, ASS ESSEE WAS DENIED DEDUCTION IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETION C ERTIFICATE BY THE CMDA BUT COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE C ORPORATION OF CHENNAI WAS PLACED ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA GRAPH 3.5 OF ITS ORDER STATED THAT THE PROJECT LAYOUT PLAN MA Y BE REQUIRED TO BE APPROVED BY THE CMDA BUT AS FAR AS THE CONSTR UCTION OF THE BUILDING IS CONCERNED, THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, I.E . THE CORPORATION OF CHENNAI IS THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE CONSTRUCTION AS PER THE BUILDING BYE-LAWS AND S ANCTION PLANS. WHEN IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE CORPORATIO N IS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY IT CANNOT BE DISRE GARDED. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE COMPLETION CERTIF ICATE ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. SINCE THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE ENTIRE DEDUCTION DEPENDS ON ALL THE CONDITIONS BEING FULFILLED DEDUCTION DEPENDS ON ALL THE CONDITIONS BEING FULFILLED, WE ADMIT THIS ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE. THE CERTIFICATE CLEARLY MENTIONS THAT THE BUILDING WAS INSPECTED ON 23.11.2007 AND THAT IT IS FOUND TO BE SATISFIED THE BUILDING PERMIT CONDITIONS. WE MAY ALSO MENTIONS THAT THE ROLE OF CMDA IS QUITE DISTINCT FROM THAT OF THE CORPORATION. CM DA LOOKS AT THE PLANS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND U RBANISATION OF THE CITY AS A WHOLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE R OLE OF THE CORPORATION WHILE ISSUING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IS TO SEE THAT THE UNIT IS HABITABLE IN ALL RESPECTS LIKE CIVIC AMENIT IES AND SO ON. EVEN FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT IF THE CMDA CERTIFICA TE IS TO BE CONSIDERED, THEN IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE DID APP LY FOR THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE TO CMDA CERTIFICATE ON 13.3. 2006. IT IS A DIFFERENT MATTER THAT CMDA RAISED CERTAIN OBJECTION S AND THE MATTER WENT UPTO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ALSO. HOW EVER, THE 14 FACT REMAINS THAT THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED MUCH BE FORE THE DUE DATE, MAY BE WITH CERTAIN DEFECTS. ALSO, IT HA S TO BE NOTED THAT THE CMDA CERTIFICATE IS DATED 13.6.2008, I.E. ONLY TWO MONTHS AND THIRTEEN DAYS BEYOND THE DUE DATE. IT I S INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE TYPE OF DEFECTS WHICH WERE P OINTED OUT BY THE CMDA COULD HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED IN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ALSO RATIFIE D THE DEVIATIONS AND DIRECTED THE CMDA TO CONSIDER THE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE FACTS GO TO POINT THAT TH E PROJECT WAS INDEED COMPLETED BEFORE THE 31.3.2008. THUS, THIS GROUND ALSO HAS NO FORCE TO DENY THE ASSESSEE THE IMPUGNED DEDU CTION. 11. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. RAMSUKH PROPER TIES VS. DCIT VIDE ITA NO.84/PN/2011 ORDER DATED 25-07-2012 FOR A .Y. 2007-08 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 6. AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATER IAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF BUILDER AND PROMOTER. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS RE GARDING ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT O N PARTIALLY COMPLETE PROJECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DENIED THE DEDUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLE TE WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGA RD TO OTHER CONDITIONS LAID U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT, I.E., COMM ENCEMENT OF PROJECT, AREA OF LAND OF PROJECT, ETC. ASSESSEES HOUSING PROJECT WAS APPROVED VIDE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE NO.3837/ 04 DATED 13.01.2005 OUT OF WHICH COMPLETION CERTIFICAT E WAS OBTAINED AND FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR 173 OUT OF 205 FLATS. SAME WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE REQUEST FOR GRANTING WHOLE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF WHOLE PROJECT HAS RIGHTLY B EEN REJECTED BECAUSE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) COULD NOT BE GRANTED TO ASSESSEE ON INCOMPLETE CONSTRUCTION AT RELEVANT POI NT OF TIME. REGARDING PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF 173 OF 205 FLATS OF PROJECT COMPLETED AS RECOGNIZED BY LOCAL AUTHORI TY, I.E., PMC IN ITS COMPLETION CERTIFICATE NO.BCO/03/01333 DATED 31.03.2008, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HEAVI LY RELIED ON DECISION OF BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD. (SUPRA), BRIGADE ENTERPRISES P. LTD. (SUPRA), AIR DEVELOPER (SUPRA), SHETH DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) AND ALSO G.V.CORPORATION ( SUPRA), WHEREIN DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) WAS DENIED AS SIZE O F SOME OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS EXCEEDED PRESCRIBED LIMIT AS LAID DOWN U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. ABOVE MENTIONED DECISIONS ARE APPLICABLE IN THEIR OWN SPHERE, I.E. ON POINT OF EX CESS AREA OF SOME OF THE FLATS WHICH HOLD GOOD IN ITS OWN SPHERE . HOWEVER, IN CASE BEFORE US, DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE AC T HAS BEEN REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT CONDITION OF COMPLETION OF PROJECT BEFORE THE DUE DATE I.E., 31.03.2008 AS LAID DOWN U/S.80IB(10)(C) OF THE ACT, HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED B Y ASSESSEE 15 WHICH IS BASIC CONDITION FOR ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCT ION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT IN CASE OF J OHAR HASSAN ZOJWALLA (SUPRA), WHEREIN CONDITION OF COMPLETION A S LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80IB(10)(A) COULD NOT BE COMPLIED WITH B ECAUSE OF A STAY BEING GRANTED BY MRTP COURT. THUS FAULT OF INC OMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO ASSESSEE. IN CASE SUCH A CONTINGENCY EMERGES WHICH MAKES THE COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISION IMPOSSIBLE, THEN BENEFIT BESTOWED ON AN A SSESSEE CANNOT BE COMPLETELY DENIED. SUCH LIBERAL INTERPRE TATION SHOULD BE USED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE WHEN HE IS INCAPACITA TED IN COMPLETING PROJECT IN TIME FOR THE REASONS BEYOND H IS CONTROL. IN CASE BEFORE US, AS STATED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE, TH AT ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS/RECTIFICATIONS FOR TOP FLOORS OF BUILDING. THE SAID MODIFICATION/RECTIFICATION COUL D NOT BE COMPLETED AS LOCAL AUTHORITY COULD NOT APPROVE THE MODIFICATION AS THEIR FILES HAVE BEEN TAKEN OVER BY CONCERN INTE LLIGENCE DEPARTMENT FOR INVESTIGATION OF VIOLATION OF URBAN LAND CEILING ACT APPLICABLE TO LAND IN QUESTION AT RELEVANT POIN T OF TIME. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. TH US, ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH COMPELLED THE IMPOSSIBILITY ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE C OMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN TIME. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT THE LAW ALWAYS GIVE REMEDY AND THE LAW DOES WRONG TO NO ONE . WE AGREE TO PROPOSITION PUT FORWARD BY LD. DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE THAT PLAIN READING OF SECTION 80IB(1 0) OF THE ACT SUGGESTS ABOUT ONLY COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION AND NO ADJECTIVE SHOULD BE USED ALONGWITH THE WORD COMPLETION. THIS STRICT INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE GIVEN IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTAN CES. HOWEVER, IN CASE BEFORE US, ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION IN TIME D UE TO INTERVENTION OF CID ACTION ON ACCOUNT OF VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF URBAN LAND CEILING ACT APPLICABLE TO LAND IN QUESTI ON. ASSESSEE WAS INCAPACITATED TO COMPLETE THE SAME IN TIME DUE TO REASONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL. ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT SUFFER FOR SAME. THE REVISION OF PLAN IS VESTED RIGHT OF ASSESSEE WHICH CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY BY STRICT PROVISIONS OF STATUTE. THE TA XING STATUTE GRANTING INCENTIVES FOR PROMOTION OF GROWTH AND DEV ELOPMENT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY AND THAT PROVISION FO R PROMOTING ECONOMIC GROWTH HAS TO BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY. A T THE SAME TIME, RESTRICTION THEREON TOO HAS TO BE CONSTRUED S TRICTLY SO AS TO ADVANCE THE OBJECT OF PROVISION AND NOT TO FRUSTRAT E THE SAME. THE PROVISIONS OF TAXING STATUTE SHOULD BE CONSTRUE D HARMONIOUSLY WITH THE OBJECT OF STATUE TO EFFECTUAT E THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR BENEFIT U/S.8 0IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF 173 FLATS COMPLETED BEFORE PRESCR IBED LIMIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 7. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISPO SED OFF AS INDICATED ABOVE. 16 12. HE ALSO DREW ATTENTION OF BENCH THAT BANGALORE BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF DY.CIT VS. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. [119 TTJ 269 (BANG.)] HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IB INCOME FROM DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECT DIFFERENT UNITS OF A GROUP PROJEC T WHERE SOME OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN A BIGGER HOUSING PROJEC T, TREATED INDEPENDENTLY, ARE ELIGIBLE FOR RELIEF UNDER S.80IB (10), RELIEF SHOULD BE GIVEN PRO RATA AND SHOULD NOT BE DENIED B Y TREATING THE BIGGER PROJECT AS A SINGLE UNIT, MORE SO, WHEN ASSESSEE OBTAINED ALL SANCTIONS, PERMISSIONS AND CERTIFICATE S FOR SUCH ELIGIBLE UNITS SEPARATELY ASSESSEE UNDERTOOK A DE VELOPMENT PROJECT IN AN AREA OF 22 ACRES 19 GUNTAS CONSISTING OF 5 RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS, ROW HOUSES, OAK TREE PLACE, A C LUB, A COMMUNITY CENTRE, A SCHOOL AND A PARK AND CLAIMED D EDUCTION UNDER S. 80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF TWO RESIDENTIAL UNI TS ONLY WHICH IF TAKEN SEPARATELY, WERE ELIGIBLE FOR THE RELIEF AO TREATED THE ENTIRE PROJECT AS A SINGLE UNIT AND DENIED RELIEF U NDER S.80IB(10) IN ENTIRETY CIT(A) ALLOWED RELIEF UNDER S. 80IB(1 0) TREATING THE SAID TWO UNITS AS INDEPENDENT UNITS JUSTIFIED M ATERIAL ON RECORD SHOWED THAT THE VARIOUS LOCAL AUTHORITIES DU LY INSPECTED THE PLOT AND SANCTIONED PLAN FOR EACH OF THE BLOCKS SEPARATELY GROUP HOUSING APPROVAL WAS APPROVAL OF A MASTER PLA N AS A CONCEPT FURTHER, THE USE OF THE WORDS RESIDENTIA L UNITS IN CL.(C) OF S.80IB(10) MEANS THAT DEDUCTION SHOULD BE COMPUTED UNIT-WISE THEREFORE, IF A PARTICULAR UNIT SATISFI ES THE CONDITION OF S.80IB, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION A ND IT SHOULD BE DENIED IN RESPECT OF THOSE UNITS ONLY WHICH DO NOT SATISFY THE CONDITIONS AGAIN, THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES WOULD ALSO MANDATE RECOGNITION OF PROFITS FROM EACH UNIT SEPAR ATELY. 21.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHATEVER PORTION COMPLETED BY THE ASSE SSEE WHICH SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S.80IB( 10) IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIE D ON BY THE REVENUE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO T HE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF B UILDING NO. A,C,D, E AND THE 17 ROW HOUSES. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY- ALLOWED. IN THIS BACKGROUND, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE S UBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOLLOWI NG THE RATIO OF RUNWAL MULTIHOUSING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). 17 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND S UBMITTED THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETED BEFORE THE ST IPULATED DATE, I.E., 31.03.2008 AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 80IB(10), THE HOUSING PROJECT HAS TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE STIP ULATED PERIOD FOR ASSESSEE TO QUALIFY FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80I( 10) OF THE ACT. SINCE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLETE WITH THIS CON DITION AND ENTIRE PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COMPLETED, THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTI FIED IN CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) AND SAME WAS RIGHTLY DISALLO WED BECAUSE PROJECT WAS SANCTIONED WITH REGARD TO BUILDINGS H-1 , H-2, H-3 & G BUILDING WHILE BUILDING H-4 WAS NOT COMPLETED AT RE LEVANT POINT OF TIME THOUGH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS OBTAINED PRIOR TO THE STIPULATED DATE WITH REGARD TO H-1, H-2, H-3 & G BU ILDINGS, BUT IN RESPECT OF H-4, COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT OBTA INED FOR THE REASONS AS STATED ABOVE. SO ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGI BLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) FOR ALL BUILDINGS. REFERRIN G TO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BRAHMA ASSOCIATES (333 ITR 269) AND THE DECISION OF CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VISWAS PROMOTERS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE UPHELD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REJOINDER SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE DECISION S RELIED ON BY HIM. 14. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE ASSESSEE H AS OBTAINED PERMISSION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR BUILDINGS H-1, H-2, H-3, H-4 AND G BUILDING. THE SAID G BUILDING WAS TO BE GIVE N TO THE PMC TO BE ALLOTTED TO THE WEAKER SECTION OF THE SOCIETY. THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON 28.05.2003 W HEREIN PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WHOLE PROJECT INCLUDING H-1, H-2, H -3 & G BUILDING, AND FIRST FLOOR OF H-4 BUILDING WAS SANCTIONED. TH E ASSESSEE WAS PLANNING TO PURCHASE FURTHER TDR FOR CONSTRUCTION O F REMAINING FLOORS OF H-4 BUILDING. AS THE PROJECT WAS SANCTIO NED BEFORE 18 01.04.2004, THE DUE DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJE CT WAS 31.03.2008. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF H-1, H-2, H-3 & G BUILDING ON 19.03.2008 AND 06.03.2007. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING H-4, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TDR COULD NOT BE PURCHASED AND, THEREFORE, THE BUILDING H-4 COULD NOT BE COMPL ETED AND HENCE THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE PM C FOR THE H-4 BUILDING HAVING FOUR FLATS. SO THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN RESP ECT OF THE PROFITS FROM BUILDINGS H-1, H-2, H-3 AND G-1 COMPLETED THRO UGH COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 06.03.2007 AND 19.03.2 008 AS STATED ABOVE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE HOU SING PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD I.E ., 31.03.2008 AND REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS CO NFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE UNDISPUTED FACTS REMAIN THAT ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED THE BUILDINGS H-1, H-2, H-3 & G ON AREA OF PLOT MEA SURING 6722.12 SQ.MTRS. AS DETAILED ABOVE. SO IRRESPECTIVE OF NON -CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING H-4, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) WITH REGARD TO THESE BUILDINGS H-1, H- 2, H-3 & G, BECAUSE, THESE ARE ON STANDALONE BASIS, FULFILLED T HE CONDITIONS WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10). 15. WE FIND THAT ITAT PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAH UL CONSTRUCTION CO. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS TO VERIFY AS TO WHEN THE BUILDING PLAN OF THESE BUILDI NGS WERE FIRSTLY APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND TAKING THE SAID DATE OF APPROVAL AS STARTING POINT, HE HAS TO VERIFY AS TO WHETHER T HESE BUILDINGS WERE COMPLETED WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT, I.E., 31.03.2008 ON THE BASIS OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT ISSUED BY THE PMC. IN CASE BEFORE US, REVENUE AUTH ORITIES HAVE NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED THE C ONSTRUCTION IN RESPECT OF BUILDINGS H-1, H-2, H-3 AND G AS DISCUSS ED ABOVE. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE OF AREA OF THE PLOT AS LAID DOW N IN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, ON WHICH PROJECT TOOK PLACE. ONLY DISPUTE IS THAT BUILDING H-4 WAS NOT COMPLETED AT R ELEVANT POINT OF 19 TIME SO CLAIM OF ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS A WHOLE. WHATEVER PORTION COMPLETED BY ASSESSEE WHICH SATISF Y THE CONDITION PRESCRIBED U/S.80IB(10) IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION A S HELD IN BRIGADE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). 16. IN CASE BEFORE US, ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE CO MPLETION CERTIFICATE WITH REGARDS TO BUILDINGS H-1, H-2, H-3 AND G AS STATED ABOVE. SO ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION U/S.80IB(10) IN THE STIPULATED TIME IN RESPECT OF COMPLETED BUIL DINGS OF THE PROJECT IN QUESTION. THE CONSTRUCTION ON H-4 BUILD ING COULD NOT BE COMPLETED FOR THE CONDITIONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH ASSESSEE IS NOT CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80 IB(10). IN SUCH SITUATION THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DENIED CLAIM O F DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF COMPLETED BUILDINGS AND CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETELY DENIED. AS MENTI ONED ABOVE, THIS VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY DECISION OF BRIGADE ENTER PRISES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). WE ALSO FIND THAT SUCH LIBERAL INTERPRETA TION SHOULD BE USED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE WHEN HE IS INCAPACITATED IN COMPLETING WHOLE PROJECT BECAUSE ASSESSEE COULD NOT COMPLETE H -4 BUILDING FOR THE REASONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL AS STATED ABOVE. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT LAW ALWAYS GIVES REMEDY AND LAW DOES WRONG TO NO ONE. WE ARE AWARE THAT PLAIN READING OF SECTION 80 IB(10) OF THE ACT SUGGESTS ABOUT ONLY COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION AND NO ADJECTIVE SHOULD BE USED ALONGWITH WORD COMPLETION. THIS S TRICT INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE GIVEN IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTAN CES. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE BEFORE US UNDISPUTEDLY ASSESSEE HAS COM PLETED THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS H-1, H-2, H-3 AND G AS ST ATED ABOVE AND ASSESSEE COULD NOT COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUI LDING H-4 FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT SUF FER FOR THE SAME WITH REGARD TO THE COMPLETED PORTIONS OF THE P ROJECT. THE TAXING STATUTE GRANTING INCENTIVES FOR PROMOTION OF GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY AND THE PROVISIO NS FOR PROMOTING ECONOMIC GROWTH HAS TO BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY. A T THE SAME TIME RESTRICTION THEREON HAS TO BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY SO AS TO ADVANCE THE OBJECT OF PROVISION AND NOT TO FRUSTRATE THE SAME. THE PROVISIONS OF 20 TAXING STATUTE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED HARMONIOUSLY WIT H THE OBJECT OF STATUTE TO EFFECTUATE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION. THIS VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY DECISION OF PUNE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAMSUKH PR OPERTIES (SUPRA), RAHUL CONSTRUCTION CO. (SUPRA), SATISH BOH RA & ASSOCIATES (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTI TLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF ALL BUILDIN GS EXCEPT BUILDING H-4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF MARCH, 2013. SD/- SD/- ( R.K.PANDA ) ( SHAILENDRA KUMAR YAD AV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER GSPS PUNE, DATED THE 22 ND MARCH, 2013 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PUNE. 3. THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE. 4. THE CIT-II, PUNE. 5. THE DR B BENCH, PUNE. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE.