The DCITValsad Circle, Valsad V. M/s. Amar Corporation, Valsad

ITA 1844/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6037 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Loose papers; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : D BENCH : AHMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, V.P. & HONBL E SHRI T.K. SHARMA, J.M.) I.T.A. NO. 1844/AHD./2009 : ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-2006 DCIT, CIRCLE-VALSAD, VALSAD VS- AMAR CORPORATION, VALSAD (PAN : AAGFA 8447D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDEN T) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.L.YADAV, D.R . RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.N.SOPARKAR, A. R. O R D E R PER SHRI T.K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 25-03-2009 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, SURA T FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER: [1] ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A .O. ON ACCOUNT OF ON MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF FLAT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,5 2,53,128/-. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN TH E AFORESAID GROUND ARE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.1, 52,53,128/- ON ACCOUNT OF ON MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF FLAT FOR THE DETAILED RE ASONS GIVEN IN PARA 3 TO 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. ON APPEAL, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,52,53,128/- FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN PAR A 2.3, WHICH ARE EXTRACTED BELOW: 2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE A PPELLANT AND THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION IS A.Y. 2005- 06 WHEREAS THE A.O. HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF ON-MON EY ON THE BASIS OF SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 18.06.2003, WHICH FALLS IN A.Y. 2004-0 5. THE ADDITION OF ON- MONEY IN A.Y. 2004-05 ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERI ALS HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A). THE BASIS FOR ADDITION IN RESPECT OF 'AMARD HAM-C' IS THE SAME AS THE BASIS OF ADDITION IN A.Y. 2004-05 AND, THEREFORE, F OLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE ITA NO.1844-AHD-09 2 CIT(A) DATED 05.03.2007 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 IN THE ASS ESSEE'S OWN CASE IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-II/CC.I/8G/2006-07, THE ADDITION MADE IN THIS YEAR ALSO DELETED. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE , SHRI B.L.YADAV, D.R. APPEARED AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE DEVELOPE D THE PROJECT NAMELY AMARDHAM- C HAS SHOWN THE SALE OF 39 FLATS OF BUILD UP AREA OF 52,950 SQ.FT. WITH A SALE PRICE OF RS.2,18,11,872/-. THE RATE OF THE SALES OF THE FLAT IS RANGING FROM 351 TO RS.451 PER SQ.FT. 5.1 THE LD. D.R. FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT ON THE BA SIS OF LOOSE PAPERS, THE AO HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THE AC TUAL CONSIDERATION IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE HAS RECEIVED (ON MONEY ON SALE OF FL AT IN AMARCHAM-C PROJECT). THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NO T RELIABLE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SHOW TRUE AND CORRECT PICTURE OF THE TRANSACTION. THE AO ACCORDINGLY ESTIMATED THE ON MONEY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2005-06. THE ON MONEY ESTIMATED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS RS.1,52,53,128/-. I N THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT IN T HE ASSESSMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ON MONEY CANNOT BE MAD E ON THE BASIS OF SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 18.06.2003 WHICH FALLS IN THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2004-05. THE LD. D.R. POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS YEAR, THE INCOME EARNED IS FROM THE SAME PROJECT IN WHICH, IN THE EARLIER YEAR, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S RECEIVING THE ON MONEY. THEREFORE, EXTRAPOLATION CAN BE MADE. BY MAKING THE EXTRAPOLATION, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1,52,53,128/- ON ACCOUNT OF ON MON EY AND LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE SAME. THE LD. D.R. HAS ALSO SUPPORT ED THE ACTION OF THE AO FOR EXTRAPOLATING THE ONMONEY IN ALL THE YEARS. IN TH IS CONTEXT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF SALES TAX VS- H.M. ESUFALI H.M. ABDULALI REPORTED IN [1973] 90 ITR 271(SC). TH EREFORE, THE LD. D.R. POINTED OUT THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AMOUNTING TO 1,52,53,128/- BE RESTORED. ITA NO.1844-AHD-09 3 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI S.N.SOPARKAR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELIED ON THE DECISION DATED 31.03.2011 OF THE ITAT , AHMEDABAD D BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIE R YEAR HELD THAT ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ON MONEY CAN BE MADE ONLY IN RESPECT OF FLATS WHERE EVIDENCE OF ON MONEY WAS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. IN OTHER YEARS, THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR EXTRAPOLATION. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS DECISION, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DULY CONSIDERED THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF H.M. ESUFALI H.M. ABDULALI ( SUPRA ). THEREFORE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) BE U PHELD. 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN PARA 10, THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD D BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.2041/A/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05, HAS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT EVID ENCE, THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR EXTRAPOLATION. ON THIS BASIS, IT WAS HELD THAT ADDI TION CANNOT BE MADE IN OTHER YEARS. ADMITTEDLY, EVIDENCE OF ON MONEY ALLEGED TO BE RE CEIVED PERTAINS TO EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AND NOT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UND ER APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ( SUPRA ), UPHOLD THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,52,53,128/-. RESULTANTLY, THIS GR OUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 8. THE ONLY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE RE VENUE IS AS UNDER: [1] ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONOF RS.16,79,14 4/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) R .W.S. 80IB(1) OF THE I.T. ACT AND R.W.R. 18BBB(4) OF THE I.T. RULES. 9. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, ON BEHALF OF T HE REVENUE, THE LD. D.R. POINTED OUT THAT THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE ITAT, AHME DABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS ( SUPRA ) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE IMPUGNED CA SE. THE SALIENT FEATURES OF THE FACTS AS EXISTED IN THE CASE OF RAD HE DEVELOPERS DECISION ARE AS UNDER: 1. THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT TO SALE IN FAVOUR OF ASS ESSEE DEVELOPER AND POSSESSION WAS GIVEN BY THE LAND OWNER. SALE CONSID ERATION WAS ALSO PAID. 2. ALL APPROVALS / PERMISSIONS WERE OBTAINED BY POW ER OF ATTORNEY OF LAND OWNER I.E. ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1844-AHD-09 4 3. RIGHT TO TAKE / PERUSE ALL GOVT. / QUASI GOVT. P ROCEEDINGS RESTED WITH THE ASSESSEE DEVELOPER BY AN AGREEMENT. 4. FOR ALL THESE BUNDLES OF RIGHTS THE ASSESSEE DEV ELOPER HAD PAID CONSIDERATION TO LAND OWNER AND OBTAINED ALL RIGHTS INCLUDING OWN ERSHIP RIGHTS. 9.1 THE LD. D.R. FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FINDINGS OF THE ITATS ORDER IN PARA 18 IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS ( SUPRA ), WHICH IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE DECISION, READS AS UNDER: '... .... FROM THE CLAUSES OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTIO N AGREEMENTS AS WELL AS AGREEMENT FOR SALE, BOTH DATED 18.05.2000, EXTRACTED ABOVE WE OBSERVE THAT THESE TWO AGREEMENTS EFFECTIVELY TRANSFER TO T HE ASSESSEE-FIRM ALL THE RIGHTS OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION AND TO DEAL WITH TH E LAND FOR CONSIDERATION PAYABLE WITHIN A STIPULATED TIME; THAT THE ASSESSES HAD BEEN PUT IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS MENTIONE D IN THESE TWO AGREEMENTS; THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HA ALSO PAID CONSIDERATION O F RS.56 LACS DURING THE TWO F.YRS. I.E. 2000-01 AND 2001-02; THAT THE ASSESSEE- FIRM HAS TO OBTAIN NECESSARY APPROVALS FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES; I.E., BMC ON BEHALF OF THE LAND OWNERS AND ALL THE EXPENSES FOR SUCH PURPOSES ARE TO BE IN CURRED BY THE ASSESSEE; THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS ENGAGED THE FIRM OF ARCHITECT AND ALSO INCURRED EXPENSES TOWARDS THE CHARGES PAYABLE TO CORPORATION, ETC., F OR OBTAINING THE APPROVALS; THAT EVEN FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IT IS NOTICED THAT FOR OBTAINING THE APPROVAL, THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS PAID THE DEVELOPMEN T CHARGES TO VARIOUS REGULATING AGENCIES I.E AUDA, BMC AND GEB(GUJARAT E LECTRICITY BOARD), ETC. AND THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSE E-FIRM AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT OUT THE COMPLETE DETAILS YEAR-W ISE IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDERS AT PAGE NO.5 READING AS UNDER:- 9.2 THE LD. D.R. FURTHER REFERRED TO THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN THE RECENT CASE OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF FAQIR CHAND GULAT I VS- UPPAL AGENCIES PVT. LTD. & ANR. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3302 OF 2005 DATED 10.07. 2008 AND STATED THAT THE FOLLOWING ISSUES WERE RAISED. (I) A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS ONE WHERE THE LAND-H OLDER PROVIDES THE LAND. THE BUILDER PUTS UP A BUILDING. THEREAFTER, THE LAN D OWNER AND BUILDER SHARE THE CONSTRUCTED AREA. THE BUILDER DELIVERS THE 'OWN ER'S SHARE' TO THE LAND- HOLDER AND RETAINS THE 'BUILDER'S SHARE'. THE LAND- HOLDER SELLS / TRANSFERS UNDIVIDED SHARE/S IN THE LAND CORRESPONDING TO THE BUILDER'S SHARE OF THE BUILDING TO THE BUILDER OR HIS NOMINEES. THE LAND-H OLDER WILL HAVE NO SAY OR CONTROL IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HAVE ANY SAY AS TO W HOM AND AT WHAT COST THE BUILDER'S SHARE OF APARTMENTS ARE TO BE DEALT WITH OR DISPOSED OF. SUCH AN AGREEMENT IS NOT A 'JOINT VENTURE' IN THE LEGAL SEN SE. IT IS A CONTRACT FOR 'SERVICES'. ITA NO.1844-AHD-09 5 (II) ON THE OTHER HAND, AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE OW NER OF A LAND AND A BUILDER, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF APARTMENTS AND SALE OF THOSE OF APARTMENTS SO AS TO SHARE THE PROFITS IN A PARTICULAR RATIO MAY BE A JO INT VENTURE, IF THE AGREEMENT DISCLOSES AN INTENT THAT BOTH PARTIES SHALL EXERCIS E JOINT CONTROL OVER THE CONSTRUCTION / DEVELOPMENT AND BE ACCOUNTABLE TO EA CH OTHER FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE ACTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROJECT. (III) THE TITLE OF THE DOCUMENTS IS NOT DETERMINATI VE OF THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE DOCUMENT, THOUGH THE NAME MAY USUALLY GIVE S OME INDICATION OF THE NATURE OF THE DOCUMENT. THE USE OF THE WORDS 'JOINT VENTURE' OR 'COLLABORATION' IN THE AGREEMENT WILL NOT MAKE THE TRANSACTION A JO INT VENTURE, IF THERE ARE NO PROVISIONS FOR SHARED CONTROL AND LOSSES. 9.3 ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID ARGUMENTS, THE LD . D.R. STATED THAT NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GONE INTO THE AGREEMENTS AND BUILDERS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, FROM WHERE IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT THE A SSESSEE IS A DEVELOPER OR A CONTRACTOR. HE ACCORDINGLY CONTENDED TO SET ASIDE T HE ISSUE FOR VERIFICATION OF DIFFERENT AGREEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGME NT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF FAQIR CHAND GULATI ( SUPRA ). FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO AND MERELY FOLLOWED THE D ECISION OF M/S. RADHE DEVELOPERS ( SUPRA ). THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION AGAINST THE PRAYER OF THE LD. D.R. TO SEN D THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS. 11. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY GON E THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE CASE L AWS. WE FIND CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. D.R. BECAUSE THE IS SUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL NEEDS RE-VERIFICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGEMENT OF TH E HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF FAQIR CHAND GULATI ( SUPRA ). SIMILARLY, THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE S ALSO LAID DOWN CERTAIN PRINCIPLES IN THE LIGHT OF THE JU DGEMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF FAQIR CHAND GULATI ( SUPRA ) AND THE AO IS ALSO REQUESTED TO CONSIDER THE CASE LAW OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHAKTI CORPORAT ION ( SUPRA ). THE ITAT, IN THIS CASE, HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO.1844-AHD-09 6 ' 16. THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) AND ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE DOMINANT OVER THE LAND AN D HAS DEVELOPED THE HOUSING PROJECT BY INCURRING ALL THE EXPENSES AND T AKING ALL THE RISKS INVOLVED THEREIN. WE MAY MENTION HERE THAT, IN OUR OPINION, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) WILL NOT APPLY IN A CASE W HERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT FOR A FIXED REMUNERATION MERELY AS A CONTRACTOR TO CONSTRUCT OR DEVELOP THE HOUSING PROJECT ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER. THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO IN THAT CASE WILL NOT ENTITL E THE DEVELOPER TO HAVE THE DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT AND ALL THE RISKS INVOLVED THEREIN WILL VEST WITH THE LANDOWNER ONLY. THE INTEREST OF THE DEVELO PER WILL BE RESTRICTED ONLY FOR THE FIXED REMUNERATION FOR WHICH HE WOULD BE RE NDERING THE SERVICES. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) HA S NOT DEALT WITH SUCH SITUATION. THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS CANNOT BE APPLIED UNIVERSALLY WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE DEVELOPER ALONG WITH THE LANDOW NER. IN THE CASE OF SHAKTI CORPORATION SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF TH E DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND CRUX OF THE AGREEMENT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND AND HAS DEVELOPED THE HOUSING PROJECT AT ITS OWN, THEREFORE , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S 80I B(10). THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF FAQIR CHAND GU LATI (SUPRA) WILL NOT ASSIST THE REVENUE, AS THE AGREEMENT IS NOT SHARING OF THE CONSTRUCTED AREA. IN OTHER CASES THE COPY OF AGREEMENT SINCE HAS NOT BEE N SUBMITTED BEFORE US, IF SUBMITTED, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMEN T WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY ARGUED BEFORE AND PLACED BEFORE US, WE THEREFORE, I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY TO BOTH THE PARTIES SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE ALL OTHER APPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECT ION THAT THE AO SHALL LOOK INTO THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY EACH OF THE ASSESSEES WITH THE LANDOWNER AND DECIDE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT PURCHASED T HE LAND FOR A FIXED CONSIDERATION FROM THE LANDOWNER AND HAS DEVELOPED THE HOUSING PROJECT AT ITS OWN COST AND RISKS INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT. IN CASE THE AO FINDS THAT PRACTICALLY THE LAND HAS BEEN BOUGHT BY THE DEVELOPER AND DEVEL OPER HAS ALL DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT AND HAS DEVELOPED THE LAND AT HIS OWN COST AND RISKS, THE AO SHOULD ALLOW THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U /S 80IB(10). IN CASE THE AO FINDS THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS ACTED ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER AND HAS GOT THE FIXED CONSIDERATION FROM THE LANDOWNER FOR THE DEVE LOPMENT OF THE HOUSING PROJECTS, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED DEDUCT ION U/S 80IB(10) TO THE ASSESSEE. 11.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION THAT HE WILL C ONSIDER THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF FAQIR CHAND GULAT I ( SUPRA ) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHAKTI CORPORATION ( SUPRA ) AND RE-ADJUDICATE THE CLAIM ITA NO.1844-AHD-09 7 OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING ALLOWING OF CLAIM OF DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10), AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. 12. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE AP PEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28.07.2011 SD/- SD/- (G.D.AGRAWAL) (T.K. SHARMA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28/07/2011 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO:- (1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE DEPARTMENT. (3) CIT (A.) CONCERNED. (4) CIT CONCERNED. (5) D.R., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, AH MEDABAD. TALUKDAR/ SR. P.S.