M/s. Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishan Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2023/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5416 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR TIWARI
• Section: 80IB; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.2022 & 2023/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2011-12 SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHAN VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , ESTATE DEVELOPERS P. LTD., CIRCLE -36(1), NEW DEL HI. C/O PRADEEP & CO., TAX ADVOCATES 7, NAVYUG MARKET, GHAZIABAD. (PAN: ABGFS9748C) I.T.A. NO.2552/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , VS SHIPRA EST ATE LTD. & JAI KRISHAN CIRCLE -36(1), NEW DELHI. ESTATE DEVELOPERS P. L TD., C/O PRADEEP & CO., TAX ADVOCATES 7, NAVYUG MARKET, GHAZIABAD. (PAN: ABGFS9748C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI PRATEEK GUPTA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VIJAY KUMAR TIWARI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 25.04.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.04.2018 2 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS DATED 04.02.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- 19, NEW DELHI (FOR SHORT HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE LEARNED CIT(A)) IN APPEAL NO.20/13-14, FOR AY 2010-11 ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL ITA 2022/DEL/2016 WHEREAS CHALLEN GING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE ORDER DT. 04.02.2016 IN APPEAL NO 42/ 2014-15 BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE PREFERRED ITA NOS 2023 AND 2552/DEL/201 6. FACTS AND QUESTIONS RAISED ARE SIMILAR, AS SUCH, ALL THE APPEALS ARE DI SPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BU SINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. THEY HAD TWO PROJECTS NAMELY PROJECT VIS TA AND PROJECT SRISHTI. THEY HAVE CLAIMED DEDUCTION ONLY IN RESPECT OF PROJEC T VISTA WHICH IS SUBDIVIDED INTO FIVE SUB PROJECTS, NAMELY, PROJECT A AND B, PR OJECT D AND E, PROJECT C (B1,B2,B3), PROJECT F (B4,B5,B6,B7) AND VISTA COMME RCIAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS OF PROJECT A&B AND D&E. 3. DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, LD. AO DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS LIKE OBTA INING SEPARATE APPROVALS AND OBTAINED ONLY A COMMON APPROVAL OF MAP FOR ALL THE PROJECTS, DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED ON CERTAIN UNITS EXCEEDING 1000 SQ FT. IN A REA AND THAT THE OVERALL AREA OF THE COMMERCIAL PROJECT IS EXCEEDING THE PRESCRIBED LIMITS. LD. AO REJECTED THE 3 PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE A ND ADOPTED PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD AND PARTLY DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 80 IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PROFITS EARNED ON PROJECT. 4. WHEN THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), LEARNED CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB(10) IN RESPECT OF ALL THE UNITS WHEREIN THE AREA OF THE UNITS WAS LESS THAN 1 000 SQ.FT. BASING ON THE REPORT OF THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) OF INCOME T AX DEPARTMENT. FURTHER, LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE OVERALL AREA OF TH E COMMERCIAL PROJECT WAS WELL WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT. FURTHER , IN RESPECT OF AY 2011-12 ALSO LEARNED CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE PROJECT COMPLETION METH OD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGAINST THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD ADOPTED BY THE LD. AO . 5. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2022/DEL /2016 IN RESPECT OF AY 2010-11 CHALLENGING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION I N RESPECT OF THE UNITS CONTENDING THAT THE BUILT UP AREA EXCEEDS THE LIMIT OF 1000 SQ.FT. ONLY WHEN AREA OF OPEN TO SKY BALCONY IS ADDED TO THE BUILT UP AREA, AND DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF CORNER UNITS OF THE PROJECT S ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH AREA DOES NOT EXCEED THE PRESCRIBED LIMITS UNDER SECTION 80 IB(10) OF THE ACT; AND ITA NO. 2023/DEL/2016 IN RESPECT OF AY 2011-12 CHALLENG ING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF CORNER UNITS OF THE PROJECT S ON THE GROUND THAT IT DOES NOT EXCEED PRESCRIBED LIMITS. REVENUE PREFERRED ITA NO. 2552/DEL/2016 IN RESPECT OF AY 2011-12 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) ACCEPTING THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSE SSEE AS AGAINST THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD ADOPTED BY THE LD. AO. 4 6. AT THE OUTSET IT IS THE SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FILED FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10, IN ITA NO 1950/DEL/2012 AND BATCH, SIMILAR FACTS WERE INVOLVED AND CHALLENGING THE DENIAL OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB(10) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE PREFERRED THOSE APPEALS; AND BY WAY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 30/05/2016, A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL DE ALT WITH THESE ASPECTS AT LENGTH AND DISPOSED OF THE MATTERS. LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE COORDIN ATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL ARE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THESE CASES ALSO. HE FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHO D OF ACCOUNTANCY ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS REPORTED IN (I) DCIT VS ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD. (2017) 88 TA XMANN.COM 69 (SC); (II) OM ENGINEERS & BUILDERS VS ITO (ITAT PUNE) 109 ITD 235 ; (III) ACIT VS VISWAS PROMOTERS (P) LTD. (ITAT, CHENNAI) 126 ITD 263; AND (IV) HISTLE PROPERTIES (P) LTD. VS ACIT (ITAT, MUMBAI) 134 ITD 6, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TENABLE, THE REVENUE DOES NOT DISPUTE THE SUBMISSION ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS THE MATTER WAS DEAL T WITH BY A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE DIRECT LY AND SUBSTANTIALLY OF THE SAME. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON EITHER SIDE. ON A READING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AS WELL AS THE ORDER DATED 30/05/2016 IN ITA NO. 1950/DEL/2012 AND BATCH, WE FIND THAT SUCH A DECISION WAS RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009- 10 AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THESE MATTERS ARE DIRECTLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME. 5 8. VIDE PARAGRAPH NOS. 34 AND 35 OF THE ORDER, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE CASE, DEALT WITH THE ASPECT O F THE REQUIREMENT OF SEPARATE APPROVAL FOR ALL THE SUB PROJECTS AND HELD AS FOLLO WS: 34. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF REQUIREMENT OF A SEPARA TE APPROVAL FOR EACH HOUSING PROJECT IS CONCERNED (CORRESPONDING TO GROUND NO 3 OF THE DEPARTMENT'S APPEAL), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SECTION 80IB (10) PRESCRIBES APPROVAL OF A HOUSING PROJECT. A HOUSING PROJECT MAY COMPRISE OF BOTH ELIGIBLE AS WELL AS INELIGIBLE UNITS. THE DEDUCTION WILL BE AVAILABLE A ND LIMITED TO THE CLAIM ON ELIGIBLE UNITS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE PROJ ECT COMPRISING OF ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE UNITS HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE AUTHORITY BY WAY OF A SINGLE APPROVAL/COMPOSITE APPROVAL. SECTION 80IB(10) REFER S TO THE APPROVAL OF A HOUSING PROJECT BUT DOES NOT PRESCRIBE A PRE-CONDIT ION THAT THE DEDUCTION WILL BE AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF ONLY THAT UNIT OR PART OF T HE PROJECT WHICH HAS BEEN SEPARATELY APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. HENCE, IT IS OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THAT A SEPARATE APPROVAL FOR EACH ELIGIBLE UNIT OR PROJECT IS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VISWAS PROMOTERS (P) LTD. VS ACIT 255 CTR 149 HAS HELD THAT THE MERE FACT THAT ONE OF THE BLOCKS HAVE UNITS EXCEEDING BUILT-UP AREA OF 1500 SQ FT PER SE, WOULD NOT RESULT IN NULLIFYING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT. CONSE QUENTLY, IT WAS HELD, THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U /S 80IB (10(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE BLOCKS. THE PUNE BENCH OF TH E ITAT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF SIDDHIVINAYAK KOHINOOR VENTURE VS ACIT (2014) 159 T TJ 390 THAT CONSTRUCTION OF EVEN ONE BUILDING WITH SEVERAL RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS OF THE PRESCRIBED SIZE WOULD CONSTITUTE A HOUSING PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC TION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE PUNE BENCH FURTHER HELD THAT EACH BLOCK IN A PARTIC ULAR PROJECT HAS TO BE TAKEN AS AN INDEPENDENT BUILDING AND HENCE IS TO BE CONSIDER ED A HOUSING PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10). PARA 32 OF THE ORDER IS RELEVANT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ALSO AND IS BEING REPRODUCED HEREIN UNDER FOR A READY REFERENCE:- '32. THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE, BASED ON THE STAT EMENT OF CHIEF ENGINEER, PCMC, IN OUR VIEW, DOES NOT H E L P THE C ASE OF THE REVENUE AS THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION WOULD SHOW. THE CASE SET U P BY THE REVENUE IS THAT TWO PROJECTS HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED BY A COMMON APPROVAL AND THUS THE PCMC HAS VIEWED THE TWO PROJECTS AS A SINGLE CO MPOSITE PROJECT. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE EXPRESSION 'HOUSI NG PROJECT', THOUGH NOT DEFINED IN S. 80-113(10) OF THE ACT, SHOULD BE TAKEN TO BE THE PROJECT PER SE, AS APPROVED BY A 'LOCAL AUTHORITY' FOR THE PURPOSES OF S. 80-IB( 10) OF THE ACT. NO DOUBT, FOR A 'HOUSING PROJECT' TO BE EL IGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER 6 S. 80-IB (10) OF THE ACT, IT IS REQUIRED TO BE APPR OVED BY A 'LOCAL AUTHORITY', SO HOWEVER, THE PHRASEOLOGY OF S. 80-IB (10) OF THE ACT DOES NOT REFLECT A LEGISLATIVE INTENT THAT THE PROJECT SHOULD BE 'AS A PPROVED' BY A 'LOCAL AUTHORITY'. THE REQUIREMENT OF S. 80-IB (10) OF THE ACT TO THE EFFECT THAT PROJECT SHOULD BE APPROVED BY A 'LOCAL AUTHORITY' I S FULFILLED NO SOONER WHEN THE 'HOUSING PROJECT' CONSIDERED BY AN ASSESSEE IS APPROVED BY A 'LOCAL AUTHORITY'. MOREOVER, THE EXPRESSION 'HOUSING PROJE CT' IS NOT DEFINED IN THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL RULES FOR PCMC I.E. THE 'LOCAL AUTHORITY' IN THE CASE BEFORE US AND THUS, THE SAID ENACTMENT CANNOT BE RE SORTED TO FOR THE PURPOSE OF UNDERSTANDING THE MEANING OF EXPRESSION 'HOUSING PROJECT' CONTAINED IN S. 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, SO LONG AS THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IS IN RELATION TO A 'HOUSING PROJECT', WH ICH HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE 'LOCAL AUTHORITY', IT WOULD SATISFY THE REQUIRE MENT OF S. 80- IB(10) OF THE ACT. PERTINENTLY, IF THE PROPOSITION OF THE REVENUE IS TO BE UPHELD, THE SAME WOULD BE QUITE CONTRARY TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE EXPRESSION 'HOUSING PROJECT' CONTAINED IN S. 80-IB (10) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VANDANA PR OPERTIES (SUPRA) AND ALSO BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VISWAS PRO MOTERS (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) AND ARUN EXCELLO FOUNDATIONS (P.) LTD. (SUP RA). IT MAY ALSO BE PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN VANDANA PROPERTIES (SUPRA) NOT ONLY NOTED THAT THE EXPRESSI ON 'HOUSING PROJECT' IS NOT DEFINED UNDER S. 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT BUT ALSO NOTED THAT THE SAME WAS NOT DEFINED EVEN UNDER THE RELEVANT LOCAL REGULATIO NS BEFORE IT, VIZ. THE MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1988 AND THE DEVE LOPMENT CONTROL REGULATIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI, 1991. THUS, THE HON 'BLE HIGH COURT PROCEEDED TO OBSERVE THAT THE EXPRESSION 'HOUSING P ROJECT' IN S. 80-IB(10) WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED AS COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD. EVEN IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE EXPRESSION 'HOUSING PROJECT' IS NOT DEFINED IN THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL RULES FOR PCMC A ND THEREFORE, THE CONCEPT OF 'HOUSING PROJECT' AS SOUGHT TO BE UNDERS TOOD BY THE LD. AO BASED ON THE EXPLANATION OF CHIEF ENGINEER. PCMC IS NOT RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF S, 80IB (I0) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ARGU MENT OF THE REVENUE TO THE EFFECT THAT SINCE SWRH AND 'S'1 PROJECTS HAVE B EEN APPROVED BY PCMC UNDER A COMMON APPROVAL, THE TWO PROJECTS SHOULD BE COMBINED AND CONSIDERED AS A SINGLE PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF S . UNDER S. 80-IB( 10) OF THE ACT IN OUR OPINION IS MISPLACED.' 35. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 3 OF THE DEP ARTMENT'S APPEAL. GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 OF THE DEPARTMENT'S APPEAL BEING GENERAL IN NATURE ARE NOT BEING 7 ADJUDICATED UPON AND ARE DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. 9. ON THE ASPECT OF THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE UNITS EX CEEDING 1000 SQ.FT. IN AREA AS PER THE REPORT OF THE DVO, VIDE PARAGRAPH NUMBER 38 , TRIBUNAL REMANDED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR ADJUDICATION W ITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS,- 38. THE ONLY ISSUE REMAINING FOR ADJUDICATION AFTE R THIS IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE DVO IN RESPECT OF FLATS AT SL. NO. 1 & 4 OF THE CHART (PARA 28 OF THIS ORDER). IT IS THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THE CORRECT MEASUREMENT IS 988.79 SQ FT WHEREAS THE DVO HAS CALCULATED THE BUILDUP AREA AT 1029.28 SQ. FT. IT IS ALSO THE ASSESSEE'S P LEA THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN AFFORDED A PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCY BEFOR E THE LD. CIT (A). HENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE T HIS LIMITED ISSUE OF DISCREPANCY IN MEASUREMENT, AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION AND ADJUDICATION THEREON AFTER GI VING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE. IN THE RESULT, THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. REGARDING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF AREA OF OPEN TO S KY BALCONY IN TOTAL BUILT-UP AREA, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE BY PARAGRAPH NO.3 7 OF THE ORDER IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: 37. IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE DEPARTMENT C OULD NOT POINT OUT ANY JUDGMENT/JUDICIAL PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY. WE ACC ORDINGLY HOLD THAT THE BALCONIES OPEN TO THE SKY ARE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM T HE CALCULATION OF THE BUILT-UP AREA OF A PARTICULAR RESIDENTIAL UNIT. WE, THEREFOR E, DIRECT THAT THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) IN RES PECT OF FLATS (AT S.NOS. 2 & 3 AS IN THE CHART REPRODUCED IN ON PARA 28 OF THIS ORDER ) WHICH HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION BY INCLUDING THE BALC ONIES OPEN TO SKY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE BUILT-UP AREA OF THE IND IVIDUAL UNITS. 11. IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF A DEDUCTION D UE TO A COMMERCIAL PROJECT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT IS A SEPA RATE PROJECT WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB(10) OF THE ACT SINCE IT HAS BUILT 8 UP AREA OF 4896 SQ METERS AS AGAINST THE TOTAL BUIL T-UP AREA OF HOUSING PROJECT OF 1,68,701 SQ.METERS CONSTITUTING 2.90% OF TOTAL BUIL T-UP AREA, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE AC T. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION, WHILE RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE BALCONIES OPEN TO THE SKY ARE TO BE EX CLUDED FROM THE CALCULATION OF THE BUILT-UP AREA OF A PARTICULAR RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND ACCORDINGLY QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB(10) OF THE ACT. WE F URTHER HOLD THAT IN VIEW OF THE DISPUTE AS TO THE MEASUREMENTS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DVO, WE RESTORE THIS LIMITED ISSUE AS TO THE DISCREPANCY IN MEASUREM ENTS IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED UNITS WITH THE AREA EXCEEDING 1000 SQ.FT. TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION AND ADJUDICATION THEREON AFTER GI VING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT THEIR CASE. GROUNDS OF APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY. 13. NOW COMING TO THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, IN RES PECT OF THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTANCY, IN VIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 16/11/2016 P ASSED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ITA 802/2016, WE UPHOL D THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD AD OPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 3 AND 4 OF REVENUES APPEAL RELATING TO THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB(10) OF THE ACTS, ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE OF THE AY 2009-10 AND SINCE THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR SUCH YEAR, FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE FIND THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE BEING DEVOID OF MERITS, AND ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 9 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH APRIL, 2018. SD/- SD/- (R.S.SYAL) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 26 TH APRIL, 2018 VJ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR