ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Navin Housing & Properties Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1833/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5420 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASU

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! , ' # $ BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1833/MDS/2013 & C.O. NO. 164/MDS/2013 ( IN ITA NO. 1833/MDS/2013 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -I(5), CHENNAI-34 VS M/S. NAVIN HOUSING & PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NAVINS BRINDAVAN NO.88, BRINDAVAN STREET, WEST MAMBALAM, CHENNAI [PAN: AAACN 9269 M] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT/CROSS OBJECTOR) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHAJI P.JACOB, ADDL.CIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.VASU , ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 20-02-2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-02-2014 #% / O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS(CENTRA L)-I, I.T.A. NO.1833/MDS/13 & C.O. NO. 164/MDS/13 :- 2 -: CHENNAI DATED 31-07-2013 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS-OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY.2010-11 ON 27-09-2010 DECLARING ITS INCOME AS ` 5,48,80,364/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTIC E U/S.143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 27-09-2011. THE ASSE SSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE AND CONSTRUCTION. DUR ING THE RELEVANT AY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PROFITS FROM ITS FOUR PR OJECTS VIZ. HARMONY TOWER, DAYTON HEIGHTS, SEMANCHERRY AND MERR Y LAND. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF ` 6,83,73,566/- U/S.80IB OF THE ACT ON PROJECT MERRY LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A WORKS CONTRACTOR AND DI S-ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28-03 -2013, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APP EALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE PROJECT UNDER CONSID ERATION IS IN THE SECOND YEAR OF CLAIM. THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE AY. 2009-10 IN ITA I.T.A. NO.1833/MDS/13 & C.O. NO. 164/MDS/13 :- 3 -: NOS.1187 TO 1189/MDS/2012 DECIDED ON 28 TH AUGUST, 2012 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREO VER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SANGHVI & DOSHI ENTERPRISE REPORTED AS 214 TAXMAN 463 (MAD) , AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/ S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE. 3. THE REVENUE HAS COME IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS). THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A CONTRACTOR AND NOT A DEVELOPER. THE LD.DR CONTENDE D THAT THE METHOD OF CONVEYING THE TITLE OF FLAT TO THE BUYER MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EXECUTING WORK ON WORK CONTR ACT BASIS. THE FLAT AND THE UNDIVIDED SHARE IN LAND WERE NOT T RANSFERRED TOGETHER. THERE WERE TWO SPILT COMPONENTS ONE TO ARRANGE FOR SALE OF UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND AND THE OTHER AN UN DERTAKING TO CONSTRUCT A FLAT. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI T.VASU, ADVOCATE STRONGL Y SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND PRAYED FOR THE DIS MISSAL OF I.T.A. NO.1833/MDS/13 & C.O. NO. 164/MDS/13 :- 4 -: APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE LD.COUNSEL STATED THAT THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN AN APPEAL FOR THE AY.2009-10. 5. BOTH SIDES HEARD. ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W PERUSED. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE SAME ISS UE HAD EARLIER COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1187 TO 1189/MDS/2012 FOR AY.2009-10 DECIDED ON 28-08- 2012. THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB. WE FIND THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION. THERE IS NO REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE EARLIER VIEW TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. TH E APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6. AS FAR AS CROSS-OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE C ONCERNED, THE SAME ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APP EALS). SINCE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DISMISSED THE CR OSS- I.T.A. NO.1833/MDS/13 & C.O. NO. 164/MDS/13 :- 5 -: OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THUS ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS HAVING BECOME INFRUCTUOUS . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON THURSDAY, THE 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) (VIK AS AWASTHY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 TNMM COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT(A)/CIT/DR