M/s. Sangam Riddhi Siddhi Promoters & Builders, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 11(4), Pune

ITA 1744/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2502 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1744/PUN/2017 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Sangam Riddhi Siddhi Promoters & Builders, 125/26/27, Patil Plaza, Mitra Mandal Chowk, Pune- 411009. PAN : ABKFS6232K Vs. ITO, Ward- 11(4), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune dated 10.03.2017 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1] The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition amounting to Rs. 62,35,490/- made on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80-IB(10) of the Act, which is patently illegal and may please be deleted. 2] The Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. AO have erred in holding that the conditions prescribed for claiming the deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) of the Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date of hearing : 26.04.2022 Date of pronouncement : 11.05.2022 ITA No.1744/PUN/2017 2 Act are not fulfilled and therefore the deduction claimed is not admissible. 2.1] The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the land area of the housing project was less than 1 Acre and while doing so he has erred in not considering the sanctioned plan of Gram Panchayat as well as 7/12 extracts which clearly state the land area to be exceeding 1 Acre. 2.2] The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that Town Planning Authority in its certificate dated 08.02.2017 has certified the area of housing project to be more than 1 Acre. 2.3] The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that both Ld. AO as well as valuer appointed u/s. 131(1)(d) of the Act have erred in not considering the land area of access road purchased by the appellant subsequently for which easement rights were available with the assessee right from the beginning. 3] Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in holding that the order of Town Planning Authority will prevail over that of Gram Panchayat, even when he himself has accepted Gram Panchayat as competent authority. 4] The appellant reserves its right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction, development of residential/commercial project. The return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 was filed on 13.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs.1,18,560/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(4), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 25.03.2013 passed us 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.63,54,051/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for deduction of Rs.62,35,490/- claimed u/s 80IB(10) on the ground that the land on ITA No.1744/PUN/2017 3 which project was developed, was less than 1 acre placing reliance on the report submitted by the Government Registered Valuer and the permission given by Gram Panchayat. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order, while concurring with the assessee that the Gram Panchayat was also a competent authority for sanction of plan, had disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the area of land in which the project was developed, is less than 1 acre and also taking into consideration the fact that subsequently the appellant had purchased land in existing area makes no difference as at the time of permission was sought from the Gram Panchayat being the competent authority for sanction of plan, the area of land is less than 1 acre. 5. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us with the above extracted grounds of appeal. 6. When the matter was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. However, the appellant had filed written submission vide letter dated 29.03.2022. ITA No.1744/PUN/2017 4 7. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR also filed the written submission. 8. We have carefully gone through the written submissions filed by both the parties and heard the ld. CIT-DR. The issue in the present appeal relates to the allowability of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption u/s 80IB(10) only on the ground that the plot of land on which the housing project was constructed is less than the prescribed limit of area i.e. 1 acre. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the area of land is less than 1 acre based on the report submitted by the Government Registered Valuer as well as sanction of plan by the Town Planning Department. The contention of the appellant that the he had purchased the land subsequent to the sanction of plan by Town Planning Department to adapt to the area of plot is rejected by the Government Registered Valuer on the ground that it is only purchase of right to access not purchase of land, this remain un-controverted by the assessee. The Departmental Valuer also mentioned in the report that 7/12 extracts were not produced and the report submitted by the Department clearly mentioned that even on actual measurement the area of land is only 4000 sq.mtrs. which is less than 1 acre. It is not the case of the appellant that the report of ITA No.1744/PUN/2017 5 the valuer as relied upon by the Department without giving an opportunity of hearing. Thus, the appellant had failed to prove that the area of land is more than 1 acre which is a condition precedent for availing the benefits of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee stand dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 11 th day of May, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 11 th May, 2022. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 4. The CIT(A)-4, Pune. 3. The Pr. CIT-3, Pune. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.