ITO, Ward 3(1), Nanded V. M/s Akar Constructions, Nanded

ITA 1876/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6738 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHE B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.1876, 1877 & 1878/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), NANDED. . APPELLANT VS. M/S AKAR CONSTRUCTIONS, AYODHYANAGARI, MALEGAON ROAD, NANDED. PAN : AAKFA7343N . RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : MR. S. P. WALIMBE ASSESSEE BY : MR. NIKHIL PATHAK DATE OF HEARING : 04-06-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23-06-2014 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THE CAPTIONED ARE THREE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE RE VENUE AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS), AURANGABAD DATED 31.07.2012 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARI SEN FROM THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 29.12.2008, 29.12.2009 AND 16.12.2011PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2 007-08 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. 2. IN ALL THE APPEALS, THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 80I B(10) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.7,36,643/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07; RS.8,90, 246/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08; AND, RS.8,69,919/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-10. ITA NOS.1876, 1877 & 1878/PN/2012 3. IN BRIEF, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE I S A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOP MENT OF HOUSING PROJECT. FOR THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE FIRM FILED ITS RETURNS OF INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOMES AFTER CLA IMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT OF RS.7,36,643/-, RS.8,90,246/- AND RS.8 ,69,919/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY ON ACCOUNT OF PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE EXECUTION OF HOUSING PROJECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IB(10) OF TH E ACT FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ON THE GROUND THAT THE HOUSING PRO JECT WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN LAW. THE CIT(A) HAS SINCE ALLOWED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUG NED ORDER. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE AFORESAID ACTION OF THE CIT(A) A LLOWING ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, A PRELIMINARILY OBJECTIO N WAS RAISED BY THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFE CT THAT THE CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 DATED 09.02.2011 ISSUED BY THE CBDT. THE PLEA RAISED BEF ORE US IS THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN EACH OF T HE APPEAL IS BELOW THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY CBDT IN ITS INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 (SUPRA) FOR FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. IN RESPONSE, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE HAS NOT CONTESTED THE FACTUAL MATRIX THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN VOLVED IN EACH OF THE CAPTIONED APPEALS IS BELOW THE MONETARY LIMITS PRES CRIBED BY THE CBDT IN ITS INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 (SUPRA) REGARDING FILING O F APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTUAL POSITION, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE SINCE THEY ARE HIT BY THE MONETARY LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY THE CBDT VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 201 1 (SUPRA) FOR FILING OF ITA NOS.1876, 1877 & 1878/PN/2012 APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. NOTABLY, AS PER THE C BDT INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 (SUPRA) APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL SHALL NOT B E FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES RAISED IS BELOW RS.3 LACS. AS A RESULT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, IN OUR VIEW, THE PRESENT APPE ALS OF THE REVENUE ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE LIGHT OF THE CBDT INSTRUCTION N O.3 OF 2011 (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, THE CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 7. RESULTANTLY, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE REVENU E ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD JUNE, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 23 RD JUNE, 2014. SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A), AURANGABAD; 4) THE CIT, AURANGABAD; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., PUNE