Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 7, Pune V. M/s. Eisha Concord Realtors, Pune

ITA 2074/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1409 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2021
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VITTHAL BHOSALE
• Assessee Lawyers: GOPAL ASWANI
• Section: 13; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY , JM . / I TA NO. 2074 /PUN/20 17 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 - 14 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7, PUNE. ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. M/S. EISHA CONCORD REALTORS, BODHI TOWER, 548/2B, SALISBURY PARK, GULTEKDI, PUNE - 411 037 PAN : AACFE2433M / RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI VITTHAL BHOSALE A SSESSEE BY : SHRI GOPAL ASWANI / DATE OF HEARING : 0 6 .0 7 .2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 . 0 7 .2021 / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHU RY, JM : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), PUNE - 5, PUNE DATED 10.05.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 AS PER THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD : 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO A PROPORTIONATE 2 ITA NO. 2074 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2013 - 14 DEDUCTION ON THE PROFITS OF THE ELIGIBLE UNITS WHICH COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10). 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE, ADD, AMEND OR ALTER THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROMOTER AND DEVELOPER OF REAL ESTATE PROPERTIES AND DEALING IN REAL ESTATE. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.09.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,50,439/ - . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER C ASS AND THE REQUIRED NOTICES DULY ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.1,78,50,709/ - U/S.80IB(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAIL S FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAME AND DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTI ON CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.917/PUN/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 12 - 13 WHEREIN THE ASSESSE WAS ALLOWED PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION ON THE PROFITS OF THE ELIGIBLE UNITS AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD. DR CONCEDED TO THESE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD TH E SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA.). WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER IN ITA 3 ITA NO. 2074 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2013 - 14 NO.917/PUN/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 DATED 09.07.2019 AT PAGE 10, PARA 11 ON THE ISSUE HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 11. THE ISSUE ARISING BEFORE US IS SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING AND IN VIEW OF CLEAR MANDATE OF THE LEGISLATURE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM ANY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT I N RESPECT OF FOUR FLATS AGAINST WHICH THERE IS VIOLATION OF CLAUSES (E) AND (F) OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF BALANCE FLATS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFORESAID HOUSING PRO JECT. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 5.1 T HE L D. CIT(A PPEALS ) ALSO AGREED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN NUMBER OF DECISIONS BY THE T RIBUNAL THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION U/S.80 IB( 10 ) OF THE A CT. T HIS ISSUE IS NO MORE R ES - I NTEGRA . 6. PARTIES HEREIN SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL ARE ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL AND THEREFORE, ON SAME PARITY OF REASONING, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ITA NO.917/PUN/2017 (SUPRA.), WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND RELIEF PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 06 TH DAY OF JU LY , 20 2 1 . S D/ - S D/ - R.S.SYAL PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 06 TH JU LY , 202 1 . SB 4 ITA NO. 2074 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2013 - 14 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS), PUNE - 5, PUNE. 4. THE PR. CIT, PUNE - 4, PUNE. 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6 . / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // T RUE C OPY // / PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE . 5 ITA NO. 2074 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2013 - 14 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 06 .0 7 .2021 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 06 .07 .202 1 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER