Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, V. M/s. Namrata Developers, Pune

ITA 1974/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9820 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V L JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: S B PRASAD
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 12; 2; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO S . 1 974 TO 1976 /P U N/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 11 - 12 TO 2013 - 14 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), P UNE . / APPELLANT VS. M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS, 592, RAVIVAR PETH, TALEGAON - DABHADE , TALUKA MAVAL, PUNE 41 0506 . / RESPONDENT PAN: A ABFN1735C . /CO NO S . 40 TO 4 2 /PUN/201 8 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 11 - 12 TO 2013 - 14 (OUT OF ITA NO S .1 974 TO 1976 /PUN/201 6 ) M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS, 592, RAVI VAR PETH, TALEGAON - DABHADE, TALUKA MAVAL, PUNE 410506 / CROSS OBJECT OR PAN: AABFN1735C VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : S HRI V.L. JAIN RESPONDE NT BY : SHRI S.B. PRASAD / DATE OF HEARING : 19 . 0 9 .201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25 . 0 9 .201 8 ITA NO S . 1974 TO 1976 /P U N/20 1 6 CO NO S . 40 TO 42 /PUN/201 8 M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS 2 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH IS BUNCH OF APPEAL S FILED BY REVENUE ARE AGAINST CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT (A) - 12 , PUNE , DATED 1 7 . 0 6 .20 1 6 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 20 11 - 12 TO 2013 - 14 AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDER S PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 153C OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . THE ASSESSEE FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE APPEAL S OF REVENU E. 2. TH IS BUNCH OF APPEAL S FILED BY REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. FIRST, WE TAKE UP ITA NO.1974/PUN/2016 AND CO NO.40/PUN/2018 , RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. 4. THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1974/PUN/2016, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WHEN THE PLOT WAS DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS DUE TO 30 METERS RESERVATION ON DP ROAD & 30 METERS RESERVATION FOR HCMTR, AS A RESULT PLOT AREA OF BOTH THE BUILDINGS LOCATED AT PLOT NO.I & II WAS LESS THAN 1 ACRE INDIVIDUALLY, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS ELABORATED BY THE AO? 2. THE ORDER OF CIT(A) MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 5. THE ASSESSEE IN CO NO.40/PUN/2018, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF OBJECTIO NS: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT DECIDING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL THAT THE ADDITIONS IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE BEYOND THE JURISDICTION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH. ITA NO S . 1974 TO 1976 /P U N/20 1 6 CO NO S . 40 TO 42 /PUN/201 8 M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS 3 6. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON THE PROJECT WHERE PLOT WAS DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS DUE TO 30 METERS RESERVATION ON DP ROAD AND 30 METERS RESERVATION FOR HCMTR. 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IN ITA NO.1281/PN/2012, ORDER DATED 11.03.2014. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO CLARIFY THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF SAID PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE KNOWN AS NAMRATA MAGIC. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE PROJECT COMMEN CED ON 28.04.2005 I.E. AFTER FIRST APPROVAL, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 1 TO 4 OF PAPER BOOK - II. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE SCHEDULED DATE OF COMPLETION WAS 31.03.2011 AS PER THE ACT. HOWEVER, PART OF PROJECT WAS COMPLETED ON 31.03.2008 AND BALAN CE ON 31.03.2011 AND THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 5 TO 10 OF PAPER BOOK - II. HE STRESSED THAT PROJECT WAS COMPLETED WITHIN TIME. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME, CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, WHEREIN THE SAID CLAIM WAS ALLOWED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT, DATED 31.03.2015. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE O F CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WAS DECIDED IN ITS FAVOUR BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 VIDE ORDER DATED 11.03.2014, WHICH WAS ALSO FOLLOWED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AN D 2010 - 11, NO CLAIM WAS MADE AND THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION RELATES TO ASSESSMENT ITA NO S . 1974 TO 1976 /P U N/20 1 6 CO NO S . 40 TO 42 /PUN/201 8 M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS 4 YEAR 2011 - 12, WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE BENEFIT AND CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM. 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND , STRESSED THAT IN VIEW OF DP ROAD WITHIN PROJECT, THE PLOT SIZE OF EACH PROJECT WAS LESS THAN ONE ACRE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, HE FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE ISSUE HAS B EEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT NAMRATA MAGIC AND HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WAS DENIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO, TOOK NOTE OF THE SAID FACT , AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN D ECIDED IN ITS FAVOUR BY THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, SINCE AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO KEEP THE ISSUE ALIVE, DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HOWE VER, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ALLOWED THE AFORESAID CLAIM, AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 10. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WHEREIN IN PARA 3 IT W AS OBSERVED THAT THE TOTAL AREA OF PLOT WAS 6900 SQ.MTRS. AND AFTER REDUCING 300 SQ.MTRS. FOR PROJECT ROAD, REMAINING AREA WAS 6600 SQ.MTRS. THE FIRST APPROVAL OF PMC AUTHORITIES WAS GIVEN ON 28.04.2005 AND IN THE SAID APPROVAL, AREA OF LAND WAS SHOWN AT 6600 ITA NO S . 1974 TO 1976 /P U N/20 1 6 CO NO S . 40 TO 42 /PUN/201 8 M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS 5 SQ.MTRS. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER NOTED THAT 30 MTRS. W IDE DP ROAD AS WELL AS 30 MTRS FOR HCMTR RESERVATION WAS THERE IN BETWEEN THE PLOT AND BECAUSE OF WHICH THE PLOT WAS DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS I.E. PLOT NO.I AND PLOT NO.II IN THE AREA STATEMENT. THE T RIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING TWO PLOTS HAD ARISEN BECAUSE OF THE MISTAKE OF ARCHITECT WHERE THE PLOT WAS ONLY ONE, BUT ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, NUMBERING WAS SHOWN AS PLOT NO.I AND PLOT NO.II BY THE ARCHITECT. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER NOTING V ARIOUS OTHER ASPECTS HELD THAT RESERVATION ON ACCOUNT OF DP ROAD AS WELL AS HCMTR WOULD NOT ALTER THE FACT THAT THE SAID PLOT WAS ONE PLOT AND MERE DIVISION ON ACCOUNT OF RESERVATION WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF EXISTING PLOT. THE CONDITIONS STIPULAT ED IN SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, OF THE PROJECT BEING ONE ACRE OF PLOT, WAS HELD TO BE FULFILLED AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD ENTITLED TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ALSO ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE AFORESAID DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 11. BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY ALSO MENTION THAT THE PROJECT HAD COMMENCED ON 28.04.2005 AS PER FIRST APPROVED PLAN AND THE SAID PRO JECT HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN STIPULATED TIME ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT I.E. BY 31.03.2011, FOR WHICH NECESSARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED ON RECORD. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT . THUS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 12. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BECOME ACADEMIC IN CASE THE ITA NO S . 1974 TO 1976 /P U N/20 1 6 CO NO S . 40 TO 42 /PUN/201 8 M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS 6 APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ACCOR DINGLY, WE DISMISS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS. 13. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY ASSESSEE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. 14. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER PROJECT DEVELOPED BY THE ASS ESSEE I.E. LEELAWATI GREENS , WHEREIN IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN VIOLATION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10)(F) OF THE ACT HAD MADE MULTIPLE ALLOTMENTS OF THE FLATS TO FAMILY MEMBERS . 15. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD DEVELOPED ANOTHER PROJECT I.E. LEELAWATI GREENS, WHEREIN IT HAD ALLOTTED FLATS TO VARIOUS PERSONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFICATION FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE MULTIPLE ALLOTMENTS OF FLATS TO FAMILY MEMBE RS I.E. TWO FLATS WERE ALLOTTED TO SPOUSES OF THE INDIVIDUALS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE ASSESSEE NOT TO BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN VIOLATION OF CLAUSE (F) OF THE SAID SECTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID N OT ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF PRORATA DEDUCTION TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 16. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER, VIDE PARAS 10.4 TO 10.4.2 DELIBERATED ON THE ISSUE OF MULTIPLE ALLOTMENTS AND HELD IT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION ON PRORATA BASIS EXCEPT FOR THE PROFITS ARISI NG ON SALE OF TWO FLATS OUT OF I.E. FLAT NOS.A8 - 302 AND 303, WHICH WERE ALLOTTED TO MRS.KHUSHBOO KULARIA AND MR. ASHOK KULARIA (WIFE & HUSBAND) AND A2 - 103 AND 104 ALLOTTED TO MRS. SNEHLATA JOSHI AND MR. VASANT HOSHI (WIFE & HUSBAND) . THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROFITS ON ITA NO S . 1974 TO 1976 /P U N/20 1 6 CO NO S . 40 TO 42 /PUN/201 8 M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS 7 ALLOTMENT OF FLATS TO INDIVIDUAL SPOUSES WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE PROFITS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF FLATS A LLOTTED IN VIOLATION OF CLAUSE (F) OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND ALSO TO INCLUDE ON - MONEY, IF ANY, RECEIVED ON SALE OF SAID FLATS AND THEREAFTER, DISALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM SALE OF TWO FLATS. 17 . THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 18. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 19. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 20. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PROJECT LEELAWATI GREENS . UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10)(F) OF THE ACT, WHICH CAME INTO FORCE W.E.F. 19.08.2009 , WHERE MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT WAS ALLOTTED TO PERSON BEING AN INDIVIDUAL, NO OTHER RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS TO BE ALLOTTED TO THE INDIVIDUAL OR THE SPOUSE OR THE MINOR CHILDREN OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL OR HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY IN WHICH SUCH INDIVIDUAL WAS THE KARTA OR ANY PERSON REPRESENTING SUCH INDIVIDUAL, THEN WHERE THE ASSESSEE HA S VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. I T MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VIOLATED THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (F) OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN FLAT NOS.A8 - 302 AND 303 WERE ALLOTTED TO ITA NO S . 1974 TO 1976 /P U N/20 1 6 CO NO S . 40 TO 42 /PUN/201 8 M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS 8 MRS.KHUSHBOO KULARIA AND MR. ASHOK KULARIA (WIFE & HUSBAND) AND A2 - 103 AND 104 WERE ALLOTTED TO MRS. SNEHLATA JOSHI AND MR. VASANT HOSHI (WIFE & HUSBAND). THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS, DENIED ENTIRE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT TWO UNITS ALLOTTED TO SPOUSES OF INDIVIDUAL BEING A8 - 30 2 AND A2 - 103 HAD VIOLATED THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10)(F) OF THE ACT. HE RELIED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN CIT VS. ARUN EXCELLO FOUNDATION PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 86 DTR 99 (MAD) AND VISHWAS PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. VS. A CIT REPORTED IN 81 DTR 58 (MAD) AND WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM PRORATA DEDUCTION ON THE PROFITS OF BALANCE PROJECT EXCLUDING TWO FLATS WHICH WERE ALLOTTED TO SPOUSES OF INDIVIDUALS. WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FINDINGS OF CI T(A), WHERE THE VIOLATION OF CLAUSE (F) OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN IN RESPECT OF PROFITS ON FLATS ALLOTTED TO SPOUSES OF INDIVIDUALS IS TO BE EXCLUDED AND IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB( 10) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS ALREADY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF PROFITS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF ABOVE SAID FLATS AND CONSEQUENTLY, UPHOLDING THE SAID DIRECTIONS, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY T HE REVENUE. 21. NOW, COMING TO THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON PRORATA BASIS IN RESPECT OF PROFITS FROM CLUB HOUSE IN THE PROJECT LEELAWATI GREENS FOR WANT OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CONSTRUCTED CLUB HOUSE WITHIN THE SAID PROJECT LEELAWATI GREENS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE REQUISITE DOCUMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.E. NO COM PLETION CERTIFICATE WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE ITA NO S . 1974 TO 1976 /P U N/20 1 6 CO NO S . 40 TO 42 /PUN/201 8 M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS 9 ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE ASSESSEE NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 22. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY WAY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WITHIN TIME FRAME ALLOWED, WHICH WAS ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AFTER CONFRONTING THE SAME TO ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HI GH COURT IN CIT VS. HINDUSTAN SAMUH AWAS LTD. REPORTED IN 377 ITR 150 (BOM) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT MERE NON - RECEIPT OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE SHOULD NOT BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND PRORATA DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE AC T. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DENIED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AS EVEN AFTER GAP OF TIME, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF CLUB HOUSE. 23. THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISED THE ISSUE BEFORE US. 24. WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. HINDUSTAN SAMUH AWAS LTD. (SUPRA). THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IN CASE APPLICATION IS MADE IN TIME BEFORE THE LOCAL A UTHORITY AND EVEN THOUGH NO COMPLETION CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN RECEIVED, THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS DISTINGUISHED THE FACTUAL ASPECTS AND OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED AFTER STIPULATED DATE AND WAS FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO COMPLETION CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT TILL DATE. THE LEARNED AUT HORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ITA NO S . 1974 TO 1976 /P U N/20 1 6 CO NO S . 40 TO 42 /PUN/201 8 M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS 10 CERTIFICATE OF ARCHITECT THAT CONSTRUCTION OF CLUB HOUSE WAS COMPLETED ON 29.03.2011, WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). MERELY BECAUSE THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE HA D NOT BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE STATE AUTH ORITIES WOULD NOT DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT THOUGH ON PRORATA BASIS. WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE, WHEREIN IT HA D COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION OF CLUB HOUSE WITHIN STIPULATED PERIO D AND HA D ALSO APPLIED FOR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ON THE BASIS OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ARCHITECT THAT CONSTRUCTION OF CLUB HOUSE WAS COMPLETED ON 29.03.2011. IT IS NOT CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT ASSESSEE HA D NOT APPLIED FOR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. HOWEVER, MERELY BECAUSE THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED BY THE STATE AUTHORITIES WOULD NOT DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON PRORATA BASIS. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD SO AND DIRECT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO ALLOW THE SAID CLAIM IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED. 25. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 ARE IDE NTICAL TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 IN RESPECT OF MULTIPLE ALLOTMENT TO SPOUSES IN LEELAWATI GREENS. 26. THE ISSUE BEING SIMILAR AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING AS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14. 27. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 ARE ALSO SIMILAR TO THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ITA NO S . 1974 TO 1976 /P U N/20 1 6 CO NO S . 40 TO 42 /PUN/201 8 M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS 11 CLAIM THE DEDUCTION ON PRORATA BASIS UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PROFITS FROM CLUB HOUSE IN THE PROJECT LEELAWATI GREENS. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED. 2 8 . IN THE RESULT, ALL APPEALS OF REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS OF ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 ARE DISMISSED AND CROSS OBJECTIONS OF ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012 - 13 AND 2013 - 14 ARE ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 25 TH SEPTEMBER , 201 8 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 12 , PUNE ; 4. THE PR. CI T CENTRAL , PUNE ; 5. 6. , , / DR B , ITAT, PUNE ; / GUARD FILE . / BY OR DER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE