Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 3, Pune V. M/s. Vishram Developers, Pune

ITA 1794/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3620 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY SINGH DEEPAK SASAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Speculation loss; Revised return
• Section: 10AA; 139(5); 10B; 139(1); 139(4); 147; 148; 10; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, A CCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, J UDICIAL MEMBER . / I TA NO. 1794 /PUN/20 1 7 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 1 - 1 2 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3, PUNE ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. M/S. VISHRAM DEVELOPERS, 61B/11, ZELUM APARTMENT, PRABHAT ROAD, ERANDWANE, PUNE 411004 PAN: AAGFV0995F / RESPONDENT A SSESSEE BY : S /S HRI AJAY SINGH / DEEPAK SASAR REVENUE BY : SHRI DEEPAK GARG / DATE OF HEARING : 0 4 .0 3 .2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 .0 3 .2020 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO , A M : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 , PUNE , DATED 05 . 12 .201 6 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 1 - 1 2 . 2. THIS IS CASE OF REVENUES APPEAL WHERE EVENTUALLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) . THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS 2 ITA NO. 1794 /PUN/20 1 7 M/S. VISHRAM DEVELOPERS OF PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS EXECUTING VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION SCHEMES FOR COMMERCIAL / RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX . THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.09.2011 WITHOUT CLAIMING ANY DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ORIG INALLY . THIS IS THE THIRD YEAR OF THE PROJECT. THE PROJECT IS CLOSE TO COMPLETION (AROUND 80%). THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER ANY INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF THIS PROJECT IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS . THE ASSESSEE NEVER CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION TILL THIS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE FOLLOW ED THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD TILL LAST YEAR. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE CHANGED HIS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING QUA RECOGNITION OF INCOME FROM EARLIER COMPLETION METHOD TO THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION, THE ASSESSEE RECOGNIZED INCOME AND DID NOT CLAIM THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SAME. IN THIS REGARD, HE FURNISHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON FACTS AS WELL AS ARGUMENTS. THERE IS LOT OF DISPUTE ON THIS AFTER THOUGHT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. 3 . THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS NOT COMPLETE AND NOT A SPEAKING ORDER QUA VARIOUS ISSUES AS H E MISSED TO DISCUSS VARIOUS ISSUES BEFORE GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE REASONS FOR WHY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, LD. DR MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION IN T HE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY; NO DISCUSSION ON THE REASONS FOR THE CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ; THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ON THE REASONS FOR VARIOUS ONES RELATED ISSUES . REFERRING TO REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON 31.03.2013 I.E. BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A RETURN FILED BY CHANGING THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FROM COMPLETION METHOD TO PERCENTAGE 3 ITA NO. 1794 /PUN/20 1 7 M/S. VISHRAM DEVELOPERS COMPLETION METHOD AND ALSO CLAIMING 80IB(10) DEDUCTION. R EFERRING TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10), LD. DR MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE GOT HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED ONCE AGAIN FOR FILING THIS REVISED RETURN AND THE FIGURES APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS DO NOT T ALLY WITH THAT OF THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS, BASED ON WHICH REGULAR RETURN WAS FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT . REFERRING TO FORM NO.10CCB WHICH IS FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME , LD. DR SUBMITTED THIS IS FULL OF DISCREPANCIES IN FIGURES AS WELL AS BLANKS OR FILLED IN MANUALLY BY THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE DAT ES AND FIGURES APPEARING IN FORM NO.10CCB, LD. DR SUBMITTED THIS REPORT WAS MADE PRIOR TO THE FINALIZATION OF ACCOUNTS. HOW THE FORM NO .10CCB IS SIGNED WITHOUT FINALIZING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT? ON THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, LD. DR MENTIONED THE CLAIM IS RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CRITICIZING THE ORDER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY , LD. DR MENT IONED ALL THE ABOVE DISCREPANCIES WERE NEVER CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER OF CIT(A), ACCORDING TO HIM , IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER AND THAT REQUIRES RE - ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES. 4. PER CONTRA, LD. AR RELIED ON T HE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE SAME ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - BRIEF PROPOSITION: 1 . THE RETURN FORM IF FILED ELECTRONICALLY WHICH IS SIGNED & VERIFIED BY ASSESSEE AS WELL AS DULY CERTIFIED BY AUDITOR. AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED IN ASSESSMENT AS PER LAW. 2 . THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN WITHIN THE PROVISION U/S 139(1) IN TIME ON 29/09/2011, THE REVISED RETURN FILED U/S 139(5) IN TIME ON 31/03/2013. AS PER THE SECTION 80AC, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM A DEDUCTION UNLESS THE ORIGINAL RETURN U/S 139(1) IS FIL ED WITHIN THE TIME. THEREFORE, ASSESSE E COMPLIED THE SECTION 80AC OF THE ACT. THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PROVISION IS TO FILE RETURN U/S 139(1) ON TIME. 4 ITA NO. 1794 /PUN/20 1 7 M/S. VISHRAM DEVELOPERS 3 . THESE ARE MANDATORY PROVISION LAYING DOWN LIMITATION ON THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE CLA IM. THEREFORE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY WITHOUT ANY ADDITION OR SUBTRACTION OF WORDS TO THE PROVISION. 4 . SECTION 80AC OF THE ACT READ AS UNDER : ' SECTION 80AC: WHERE IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEA R COMMENCING ON T HE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2006 OR ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, ANY DEDUCTION IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER SEC T ION 80 - IA OR SECTION 80 - IAB OR SECTION 80 - IB OR SECTION 80 - IC 47 [OR SECTION 80 - ID OR SECTION 80 - IE ] , NO SUCH DEDUCTION SHALL B E ALLOWED TO HIM UNLESS HE FURNISHES A RETURN OF HIS INCOME FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR ON O R BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139.)' CASE LAWS A . ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) WHEREIN DEDUCTION WAS NOT CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80 - IC - SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(5) WHEREIN CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION WAS RAISED - ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED ASSESSEE'S CLAIM - SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK A VIEW THAT SINCE ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 139(1) , SAME COULD NOT BE ALLOWED KEEPING IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC - HE THUS PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3), READ WITH SECTION 147 WITHDRAWING DEDUCTION ALLOWED TO ASSESSEE - WHETHER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80A C DO NOT LAY DOWN CONDITION THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 - IC MUST BE CLAIMED IN RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER SECTION 139(1) - HELD, YES WHETHER EVEN OTHERWISE SINCE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(5) WITHIN STIPULATED TIME ALONG WITH AU DIT REPORT AND CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO.1 0 CCB , THERE WAS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 - IC READ WITH SECTION 80AC AND, THUS, ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION WAS TO BE ALLOWED - HELD, YES [PARA 6] [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE] MONARCH INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES (P.) LTD V ACIT [201 8 ] 91 TA X MANN.CO M 267 (MUMBAI - TRIB.) B . CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 - IB, ONLY CONDITION IS THAT ORIGINAL RETURN SHOULD BE FILED IN TIME - SAID CLAIM NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE MADE IN ORIGINAL RETURN AND IT CAN BE MADE SUBSEQUENT THERETO ALSO, EVEN BEFORE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. PARMESHWAR COLD STORAGE (P.) LTD. V . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX [2011 ] 8 ITR (T) 172 / 49 SOT 67 (AHMEDABAD)(URO) 5 . SECTION 80A OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER: SECTION 80A(5) - W HE RE THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO MAKE A CLAIM IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ANY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 1 0 A OR SECTION 10 AA OR SECTION 10 B OR SECTION 10 BA OR UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER UNDER THE HEADING 'C. - DEDUCTIONS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN INCOMES', NO DE DUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED TO HIM THEREUNDER. 6 . THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED SECTION 80A (5) AS WE LL AS 80AC OF THE ACT: THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN WITHIN THE PROVISION U/S 139(1) IN TIME, THE REVISED RETURN FILED U/S 139(5) IN TIME. THE CLAIM IN RETURN AS 5 ITA NO. 1794 /PUN/20 1 7 M/S. VISHRAM DEVELOPERS PER SECTION 80A(5) MEANS THE CLAIM MADE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OR REVISE RETURN F ILED WITHIN THE TIME. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE HAS MADE CLAIM IN REVISE RETURN FILED U/S 139(5) IN TIME IS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. SIMILARLY REQUIREMENT OF SECT ION 80AC IS THAT RETURN U/S 139(1) SHOULD BE FILED. IN PRESENT CASE THE RETURN U/S 139(1) IS FILED IN TIME. CASE LAWS A . S. 139 R.W.S 80: RETURN OF INCOME - ORIGINAL RETURN FILED WITHIN THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED U/S 139(1) - THEN ANY REVISED RETURN FILED, SUBSEQUENTLY WITHIN THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED U/S 139(5) - THE NATURE OF ORIGINAL RETURN FILED U/S 139(1) AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S 139(3) OF THE ACT, IS FULFILLED AND ACCORDINGLY, LOSS CLAIMED SHALL BE ALLOWED TO BE CARRI ED FORWARD UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF THE ACT. ACIT - 4(2)(2) V. MARKS & SPENCER RELIANCE INDIA PVT. LTD, ITA NO.6703/MUM/2018, A.Y. 2012 - 13, BENCH. 'D', DOH: 22/01/2020 (MUM)(TR I B) B . M/S OLAVANNA SERVICE COOP BANK V ITO, I.T.A NO - 398/COCH/2014, DATE D - 17/10/2016 (ITAT)(COCH) C . THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED WELL WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER THE LAW AND THE REVISED RETURN FILED BEFORE THE AO COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS U/S.80IB(10), THEREFORE, ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF HOUSING PROJECT. DCIT V KAMDHENU BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS / I.T.A NO 7010/MUM/2010, DATED - 27/01/2016 (ITAT)(MUM) D . THE ASSESSEE FILED AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 56F WHEN REVISED COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME WAS FURNISHED BEF ORE ASSESSING OFFICER, DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10AA COULD NOT BE DENIED MERELY FOR NON - FILING OF AUDIT REPORT ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE BECAME ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10AA; THERE WOULD BE NO STATUTORY BAR PROVIDED IN SECTION 80A(5) AS THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON PART OF ASSESSEE TO CLAIM SUCH DEDUCTION. DIC FINE CHEMICALS ( P .) LTD. V. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), [2019] 177 ITD 672 (KOLKA T A - TRIB.) E . IN THE EXPLANATORY NOTES, THE BOARD HAD CLARIFIED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80A(5) WERE ENACTED TO PREVENT THE MISUSE OF MULTIPLE DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF THE SAME PROFITS AND THEREFORE NECESSARY SAFEGUARDS WAS PUT IN PLACE IN SECTION 80A. IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO DENY LEGITIMATE DEDUCTION TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS OT HERWISE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO. CIRCULAR NO. 5/2010/(F.NO.142/13/2010 - SO(TPL) ] , DATED 3 - 6 - 2010 F . SECTION 139 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 - RETURN OF INCOME REVISED RETURN - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 - FOR RELEVANT YEAR, ASSESSEE FILED RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) DECLARING CERTAIN TAXABLE INCOME - SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(5) RAISING A CLAIM FOR CARRY FORWARD OF SPECULATION LOSS - ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED SAID CLAIM ON GROUND THAT SAME WAS NOT RAISED IN ORIGINAL RETURN BUT IN REVISED RETURN - TRIBUNAL TOOK A VIEW THAT ONCE A RETURN WAS REVISED UNDER SECTION 139(5) WITHIN TIME PRESCRIBED, ORIGINAL RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 139(1) WOULD NOT 6 ITA NO. 1794 /PUN/20 1 7 M/S. VISHRAM DEVELOPERS SURVIVE - ACCORDINGLY, TRIBUNAL ALLOWED ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR CARRY FORWARD OF SPE CULATION LOSS - WHETHER ORDER PASSED BY TRIBUNAL WAS TO BE UPHELD - HELD, YES [PARA 6] [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE] PCIT V. BABUBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL (2017) 249 TAXMAN 470 (G U J.) (HC) G . WHETHER DATE OF FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 WOULD SAFELY ENCOMPASS WITHIN ITS SWEEP, TIME LIMIT PROVIDED FOR FILING OF 'RETURN OF INCOME' BY ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 139(4) AS WE LL AS REVISED RETURN FILED BY HIM UNDER SECTION 139(5) - HELD, YES - [PARAS 8 AND 10] [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE] RAJENDRA PAL VERMA, V . ACIT (2019) 176 ITD 211 (MUM) (TRIB.) H . WHETHER SINCE SECTION 54/54F SIMPLY MENTIONS THAT UNUTILISED PORTION OF CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET SHOULD BE DEPOSITED BEFORE DATE OF FUR NISHING RETURN OF TAX UNDER SECTION 139, IN SUCH A SITUATION, SECTION 139 CANNOT BE MEANT ONLY SECTION 139(1), BUT IT MEANS ALL SUB - SECTIONS OF SECTION 139 - HELD, YES - [PARAS 14 AND 15] [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE] ITO V. NILIMA ABHIJIT TANN U . (2019) 177 ITD 308 (MUM) (TRIB.) 7. REVISED FORM NO 10CCB - FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. 1 . THE A.O REJECTED THE REVISED RETURN ON OF THE GROUND THA T THE FORM NO 10CCB IS NOT PROPERLY FILED. THE SAME IS CORRECTED AND FILED BEFORE A.O DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. [ PG NO. 71 - 76] 2 . THE A.O COULD NO T DISALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) MERELY ON THE GROUND OF ERROR IN FORM NO 10CCB, IT'S ONLY THE TEC HN ICAL MISTAKE AND IT WAS CORRECT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. 3 . THE ASSESSEE RELIED THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: A ) SECTION 10B OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 - EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKING (CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION) - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 - WHETHER WHEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES REVEAL THAT ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10B A N D IT HAD BEEN FOUND TO BE IN ORDER EXCEPT THAT INSTEAD OF MENTIONING EXEMPTION UNDER SECT ION 10B, WHILE E - FILING RETURN, IT WAS WRONGLY ON ACCOUNT OF TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR MENTIONED SECTION 80 - IB, IT COULD BE SAID TO BE SUC H A MISTAKE BY WHICH EXEMPTION COULD BE DISALLOWED OUTRIGHTLY - HELD, NO [PARA 16] [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE] COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME - TAX V. RAJASTHAN FASTENERS (P.) LTD [2014] 363 ITR 271 (RAJASTHAN - HC) B ) S. 11 : PROPERTY HELD FOR CHARITABLE PU R POSES - FILING OF FORM 10 DURING RE - ASSESSMENT BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION WAS AVAILABLE. [ S. 139 (4), 148 ] C1T V. SAKAL RELIEF FUND (2017) 248 TAXMAN 31 /295 CTR 561 /152 DTR 89 (BOM.) (HC) 5 . WE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE LIMITED ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND ALSO PERUSED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. IN THIS REGARD, WE PERUSED AND CONSIDERED RELEVANT PARA 9.3 AT PAGE 18 OF THE 7 ITA NO. 1794 /PUN/20 1 7 M/S. VISHRAM DEVELOPERS CIT(A)S ORDER. THE SAID PARA IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) COMPLETELY AVOIDS THE CORE ISSUES / DISCREPANCIES NARRATED ABOVE. THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE APPRECIATING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION RELATING TO SOME GLITCHES IN THE SOFTWARE. THE SAID PARA OF CIT(A)S ORDER DOES NOT HAVE REASONS FOR ACCEPTING PATENT DISCREPANC IES APPEARED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS AND STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS , DATES IN THE AUDIT REPORTS, ETC. N O REASON IS GIVEN FOR THE ANTI - DATED FORM NO.10CCB. FURTHER, N O DETAILS ARE GIVEN FOR JUSTIFYING THE DIFFERENCES IN THE SALES FIGURE, NO REASONS ARE GIVEN FOR ACCEPTING CHANGE IN METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. IN OUR OPINION, SUCH AN ORDER OF CIT(A) IS NOT IN TUNE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, SHOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMA NDED TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR RE - ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES AND DIRECT THE CIT(A) TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ATTENDING TO THE AFORESAID DISCREPANCIES WITH REFERENCE TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, ON ONE SIDE AND REQUIREMENT OF FILING THE RETURN ON THE OTHER SIDE OR CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING METHOD, AS THE CASE MAY BE. THE CIT(A) SHALL GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE RE - ADJUDICATING THE AFORESAID ISSUES. THUS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH MARCH , 2020. SD/ - SD/ - S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI D. KARUNAKARA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 5 TH MARCH , 2020. GCVSR 8 ITA NO. 1794 /PUN/20 1 7 M/S. VISHRAM DEVELOPERS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) - 3 , PUNE . 4. THE PR. CIT - 2 , PUNE . 5. , , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // // TRUE COPY// / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE