Income-tax Officer, V. Prathamesh Constructions, Pune

ITA 2082/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85165 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MODI
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHENDRA MEHTA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2082/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), PUNE. . APPELLANT VS. PRATHAMESH CONSTRUCTION, SUCCESS CHAMBERS, 1232, APTE ROAD, DECCAN GYMKHANA, PUNE 411 004. PAN : AAGFP7342A . RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A. K. MODI ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHENDRA MEHTA DATE OF HEARING : 01-10-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-11-2014 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGA INST AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, PUNE D ATED 19.08.2013 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 23.12.2011 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT TO THE HOUS ING PROJECT 'AMRUT KAILAS' APPROVED ON 31.03.2001 AND WAS STILL INCOMPLETE BY 31.03.2008 IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 80IB(10)(A)(I) OF THE ACT WHICH REQUI RES SUCH PROJECT TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE 31.03.2008. 2) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON PARTIAL COMPLE TION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF COMPLETED BUILDINGS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHO RITY ON 31.03.2001 WHEREIN CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS A B C D E G H L IN ENTIRE TY WERE SANCTIONED AND COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS ADMITTEDLY NOT ISSUED BY PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING G. ITA NO.2082/PN/2013 3) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT IF THE CONDITIONS SET OU T IN SECTION 80IB(10) ARE SATISFIED, THEN DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE ON THE ENTIR E PROJECT APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ALLOWIN G DEDUCTION TO A PART OF THE PROJECT. 4) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE PARKING SLAB OF BUIL DING G AND THE BALANCE BUILDING G CANNOT BE SEPARATED AND MOREOVER THE ASS ESSEE HAD PROPOSED BUILDING G IN THE FIRST PLAN APPROVED BY PMC ON 31. 03.2001 AND, THEREFORE BUILDING G WAS PART & PARCEL OF THE HOUSING PROJECT CLAIMED U/S.80IB(10). 3. ALTHOUGH, REVENUE HAS RAISED MULTIPLE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT (A) IN ALLOWING ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AMOUNTI NG TO RS.18,81,470/-, WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. 4. IN BRIEF, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE RESPON DENT-ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHICH IS, INTER-ALIA, ENGAGED IN T HE BUSINESS OF PROMOTERS, BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10, ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.15,32 ,850/- WHICH, INTER-ALIA, INCLUDED A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE A CT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM DEVELOPMENT OF A HOUSING PROJECT, NAME D, AMRUT KAILAS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICE R REJECTED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AMO UNTING TO RS.18,81,470/- AND ACCORDINGLY THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS .34,14,320/-. THE PRIMARY OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE CONDITION OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJ ECT PRESCRIBED IN CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE STIPULATED DATE OF 31.03.2008. THE CIT(A) HAS SINCE UPHELD THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, AGAINST WHICH REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE CONTROVERSY, THE FOLL OWING FACTS ARE RELEVANT. ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTIO N OF A HOUSING PROJECT, ITA NO.2082/PN/2013 NAMED, AMRUT KAILAS AT PUNE. THE FIRST BUILDING PLAN WAS SANCTIONED BY THE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (PMC) I.E. LOCAL AUTHORI TY VIDE ITS CERTIFICATE DATED 31.03.2001. ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE HOUSING PR OJECT CONSISTED OF SEVEN BUILDINGS, NAMELY, A, B, C, D, E, H AND I CONSISTIN G OF 174 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 4 SHOPS AND PARKING SLAB OF BUILDING G. THE AFORES AID HOUSING PROJECT WAS COMPLETED IN VARIOUS STAGES AND ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT OBTAINED COMPLETION CERTIFICATES FROM TIME TO TIME BETWEEN 1 0.01.2005 TO 29.03.2008. IN THIS MANNER, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT REFERRED ABOVE, WHOSE BUILDING PLAN WAS FIRST SANCTIONED ON 31.03.2001 WAS COMPLETED ON 29.03.2008 I.E. THE DATE ON WHICH THE LAST OF TH E COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY THE PMC. IN THIS MANNER, ASSESSEE CONTEN DED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS COMPLETED WITHIN THE STI PULATED PERIOD PRESCRIBED IN CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, I.E. BEF ORE 31.03.2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLAN ATION OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF BUILDING G WAS RECEIVED ON 12.05.2011 AND THEREFORE IT IS ONLY ON THIS DATE IT COULD BE CONSIDERED THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT WAS COMPLETE. S INCE THE SAID DATE WAS BEYOND THE STIPULATED DATE OF 31.03.2008, ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES PROJECT HAD VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF C LAUSE (A) OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED. 6. THE CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THE CERTIFICATE FOR CO MMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING G WAS OBTAINED BY THE AS SESSEE FROM PMC ON 19.04.2001 AND THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS OBTAI NED ON 12.05.2011. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), BUILDING G CONSTITUTED A SEPARATE HOUSING PROJECT AND IN SO FAR AS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONC ERNED, IT RELATED TO THE PROJECT WHICH WAS COMPLETED WITH THE ISSUANCE OF TH E COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ON 29.03.2008. IN COMING TO SUCH CONCLUSION, THE CIT( A) HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. VANDANA PROPERTIES, (2012) 206 TAXMANN.COM 584 (BOM). ITA NO.2082/PN/2013 7. BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF BUILDING G WAS RECE IVED ON 12.05.2011, WHICH WAS BELATED. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE S UBMITTED THAT NO DOUBT THE FIRST BUILDING PLAN SANCTION OF THE ASSESSEE GI VEN BY PMC ON 31.03.2001 DID NOT ENVISAGE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING G, BUT THE ELIGIBLE HOUSING PROJECT IN QUESTION IS TO BE CONSIDERED AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING G, WHICH WAS COMPLETED ON 12.05.2011, AS PER THE COMPL ETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY PMC. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT BUILDING G WAS NEVER CONTEMP LATED WHEN THE FIRST BUILDING SANCTION OF THE PROJECT WAS OBTAINED ON 31 .03.2001 AND ALSO IN THE REVISED SANCTIONS WHICH WERE OBTAINED PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT ON 29.03.2008. IT HAS ALSO BEEN POINTED OUT THAT IN S O FAR AS THE INSTANT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, IT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE PROFITS OF THE BUILDING G. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE POINTE D OUT THAT IN TERMS OF THE FIRST BUILDING PLAN SANCTION DATED 31.03.2001 WHICH WAS A MENDED FROM TIME TO TIME TILL THE FINAL COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 29.03.2 008, THE CONSTRUCTION OF 174 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 4 SHOPS IN BUILDINGS A, B, C, D, E, H AND I AND PARKING OF G BUILDING WAS COMPLETED; AND THE AFORESAID CONSTIT UTED A HOUSING PROJECT FOR WHICH THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WAS CLA IMED. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING G AS A PART OF THE HOUSING PROJECT WHEN SUCH A BU ILDING WAS NOT EVEN POSSIBLE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS ON 31.03.2008. IN TH IS CONTEXT, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE REFERRED TO PARA 3.4 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT BUILDING G WAS CONTEMPLATED ONLY AFTER THE PURCHASE OF TDR ON 19.04.2011 COMPRISING OF GROUND PLUS 6 FLOORS C ONSISTING OF 48 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. PRIOR TO THIS, BUILDING G WAS CONTEMPLATE D ONLY AS A PARKING AREA WHICH FORMED A PART OF THE PROJECT COMPLETED BEFORE 31.03 .2008. THEREFORE, IT IS ITA NO.2082/PN/2013 POINTED OUT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT WA S COMPLETE VIDE FINAL COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 29.03.2008, AND NON-CO MPLETION OF ANOTHER PROJECT WHICH WAS TAKEN-UP ON A LATER DATE CANNOT B E CONSIDERED TO SAY THAT ASSESSEES PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETE BEFORE 31.03.20 08. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. FIRST OF ALL, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE PROJECT FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAS CL AIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT COMPRISES OF 7 BUILDINGS A, B, C, D, E, H AND I CONSISTING OF 174 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 4 SHOPS AND PARKING SL AB OF BUILDING G. IN SO FAR AS THE SAID PROJECT IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO DISPU TE THAT IT COMPLIES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT INASMUCH AS THE COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION HAS TAKEN PLACE BEFORE 3 1.03.2008. OSTENSIBLY, THE SAID PROJECT HAS BEEN ACCORDED COMPLETION CERTIFICA TES ON VARIOUS DATES RANGING FROM 10.01.2005 TO 29.03.2008, AS PER DETAI LS CULLED OUT BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 3.4 OF HIS ORDER. 10. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE PURCHASED CERTAIN TDRS O N 19.04.2011 IN TERMS OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE CONTEMPLATED CONSTRUCTI ON OF BUILDING G WITH GROUND PLUS 6 FLOORS COMPRISING OF 48 RESIDENTIAL U NITS. THE BUILDING PLAN SANCTION FOR THE AFORESAID CONSTRUCTION WAS OBTAINE D BY THE ASSESSEE FROM PMC ON 19.04.2011 AND THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WA S OBTAINED ON 12.05.2011. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SETUP A CASE THAT THE AFORESAID BUILDING G IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS A PART AND PARCE L OF THE EARLIER PROJECT AND THEREFORE THE CONDITION OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTI ON PRESCRIBED IN CLAUSE (A) TO SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE EXAMINED ACCO RDINGLY. 11. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE PLEA SETUP BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS QUITE MISPLACED. FACTUALLY SPEAKING, WHEN ASSESSEE OBTAINED THE BUILDING PLAN SANCTION ON 31.03.2001, IT HAD NOT CONTEMPLATE D CONSTRUCTION OF 48 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN BUILDING G. WHEN ASSESSEE O BTAINED THE FINAL COMPLETION ITA NO.2082/PN/2013 CERTIFICATE ON 29.03.2008 WITH RESPECT TO THE SEVEN BUILDINGS, NAMELY, A, B, C, D, E, H AND I CONSISTING OF 174 RESIDENTIAL UNITS A ND 4 SHOPS AND PARKING SLAB OF BUILDING G, EVEN THEN CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING G COMPRISING OF 48 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED. THE CONSTR UCTION OF BUILDING G WAS POSSIBLE TO BE CONTEMPLATED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY AF TER THE PURCHASE OF TDRS ON 19.04.2011 AND THEREFORE THE SAME HAS TO BE VIEW ED AS A PROJECT INDEPENDENT OF THE EARLIER PROJECT, WHICH STOOD COM PLETED BY THE ISSUANCE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE BY PMC ON 29.03.2008. FACTU ALLY SPEAKING, THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE POSITION THAT THE TDRS FOR ENABLING THE ASSESSEE TO UNDERTAKE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING G WAS NOT AVAILABLE UPTO 2011 AND THEREFORE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE ENVISAGED THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID BUILDING PRIOR TO 2011. THUS, ON THESE FACTS, IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT(A ) MADE NO MISTAKE IN COMING TO THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS IN PARA 3.4 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH READ AS UNDER :- 3.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT HAS UNDERTAKEN A HOUSING PROJECT 'AMRUT KALASH' SITUATE D AT KARVENAGAR, PUNE WHICH IS ON TOTAL AREA OF THE PLOT OF 13,100 SQ MTR S., WHICH IS MORE THAN 1 ACRE. THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS FIRST SANCTIONED VIDE COMME NCEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 31-03-2001 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO REVIS ION FROM TIME TO TIME. THE SAID PROJECT COMPRISED OF 7 BUILDINGS VIZ. A,B, C,D,E,H & I WHICH CONSISTS OF 178 UNITS I.E.174 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 4 SHOPS AND PARKING SLAB OF BUILDING G. THE AREA OF ALL THE 174 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IS LES S THAN 1500 SQ.FT. AND THOSE OF SHOPS IS 919.29 SQ.FT. THE AFORESAID PROJECT SANCTI ONED EARLIER HAS BEEN COMPLETED VIDE COMPLETION/ OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DA TED 29-03-2008 THOUGH THE COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATES HAVE BEEN OBT AINED FROM TIME TO TIME AS PER THE COMPLETION OF THE UNITS OF THE PROJECT A S UNDER: SR NO COMPLETION CERTIFICATE NUMBER DATE BUILDING RESIDENTIAL UNITS SHOPS 1. 0004796 10/01/2005 H 48 0 2. 000562 11/10/2005 A 24 0 B 24 0 3. 01073 29/03/2008 C 18 0 D 18 0 E 18 0 I 24 4 TOTAL 174 4 THUS THE 174 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 4 SHOPS AS CONTE MPLATED AS PER THE SANCTIONED PLAN HAS BEEN COMPLETED PRIOR TO 31-03-2 008, THE STIPULATED DATE AS PER SECTION 80IB(10). THE AFORESAID FACT ALSO GE TS CONFIRMED FROM THE REPORT DATED 12-12-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE VALUER, SHRI. NIT IN LELE. HOWEVER, FOR THE BUILDING G THE VALUER'S REPORT ALSO MENTIONS THAT I N THE FIRST LAYOUT DATED 31-3- 2001 THE SAME IS SANCTIONED AS ONLY PARKING AND IN NEXT REVISION DATED 28-3- ITA NO.2082/PN/2013 2008 THE SAME HAS BEEN SHOWN FOR BUILDING G I.E. PA RKING ONLY. THUS THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT THAT BUILDING G WAS NEVER CONTEMPLATED AS A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT UPTO 31-3-2008 IS PRIMA FACIE TRUE. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY THE APPELLANT CONSTRUCTED THE G BUILDI NG WITH GROUND PLUS 6 FLOORS WITH 48 FLATS OR UNITS AND THE VALUER IN ITS REPORT HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN SEPARATE COMMENCEMENT AND OCCUP ANCY CERTIFICATE FOR THE G BUILDING AND THAT THE SAID BUILDING IS CONSTR UED FROM THE TDR PURCHASED AND THE SAME IS NOT PART OF THE EXEMPTION CLAIM U/S 80IB(10). THE BASIC OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITH RESPECT TO THE NON COMPLETION OF THE PARKING OF THE G BUILDING PRIOR TO 31-3-2008. I.E. THE STIPULATED DATE OF COMPLETION AS PER SEC 80IB(10). THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HOWEVER, HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE FACT THAT THE COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE OF THE BUILDING G WAS OBTAINED ONLY ON 12-05-2011 AND HENC E HAS HELD THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME E NVISAGED AS PER PROVISION OF SEC 80IB(10) AS THE SAID BUILDING BEING PART OF THE HOUSING PROJECT. THE ORIGINAL PLAN WHICH GOT SANCTIONED IN 2001 HAD CON TEMPLATED BUILDING 'G' TO BE 'PARKING' AND THE REVISED PLAN DATED 28-3-20 08 ALSO SHOWED BUILDING G TO BE PARKING ONLY IS UNDISPUTED AS THE SAME ALSO G ETS CONFIRMED BY THE REPORT OF THE VALUER. THUS THE APPELLANT UPTO 31-03-2008 H AD NOT CONTEMPLATED ANY RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE SAID BUILDING 'G' UPTO THA T DATE I.E. 31 .03.2008. IT WAS ONLY SUBSEQUENTLY THAT THE APPELLANT GOT THE PLAN A PPROVED AFTER THE PURCHASE OF TDR ON 19-04-2011 WHEREBY THE SAID BUILDING 'G' WHICH CONTEMPLATED PARKING ONLY WAS REVISED AND THE SAME WAS APPROVED AS A BUILDING WITH GROUND PLUS 6 FLOORS COMPRISING OF 48 RESIDENTIAL U NITS. IN ANY CASE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10 ) ON THE SAID BUILDING. THE QUESTION WHICH ARISES IS WHETHER THE HOUSING PR OJECT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE COMPLETE WITHOUT THE PARKING OF BU ILDING G AS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT EXCLUDING BUILDING 'G' HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THE STIPULAT ED PERIOD AND THE COMPLETION / OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ALSO RECEIVED WI THIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED AS PER SECTION 80IB(10). THE VERY FACT T HAT TDR FOR BUILDING 'G' WAS NOT AVAILABLE UPON 2011 AND HENCE THE APPELLANT COU LD NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTED THE SAID BUILDING. THUS, THE ONLY DISPUTE IS THAT B UILDING G WHICH WAS ALLOTTED FOR PARKING WAS NOT COMPLETED AT RELEVANT POINT OF TIME HOWEVER, FOR THE REMAINING PART OF THE PROJECT ALL THE CONDITIONS ST IPULATED AS PER SECTION 80IB(10) HAS BEEN FULFILLED AND HENCE IN VIEW OF TH E SEVERAL DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNALS AND BOMBAY HIGH COURT THE APPELLANT IS EN TITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF THE COMPLETED BUILDINGS. 12. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT THAT THE DECISION RENDERED B Y THE CIT(A) IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VANDANA PROPERTIES (SUPRA). THE HONBLE HIGH CO URT HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE EXPRESSION HOUSING PROJECT IS NEITHER DEFINED UND ER THE ACT AND NOR IT HAS BEEN DEFINED UNDER THE BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1988 AS ALSO UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REGULATIONS FOR GREAT ER MUMBAI, 1991. OSTENSIBLY, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS CONSIDERING A PROJECT, WHICH WAS UNDER THE DOMAIN OF THE BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATIO N ACT, 1988. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE RELEVANT LOCAL AUTHORITY IS PUN E MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BUT IT ITA NO.2082/PN/2013 IS ALSO EVIDENT THAT UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL RULES OF PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THE EXPRESSION HOUSING PROJECT HAS N OT BEEN DEFINED. THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF VANDANA PROPERTIES (SUPRA) APPLY PARI-MATERIA IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT EXPLAINED THAT T HE EXPRESSION HOUSING PROJECT APPEARING IN SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT H AS TO BE CONSTRUED AND UNDERSTOOD AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD IN COMMON PARLANCE . AS PER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, THE CONSTRUCTION OF EVEN ONE BUILDING WITH S EVERAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS COULD ALSO CONSTITUTE A HOUSING PROJECT U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, IT WAS NOTICED THAT WHEN TH E PLAN FOR A, B, C AND D BUILDINGS WERE APPROVED DURING THE PERIOD 1993 TO 1 996, CONSTRUCTION OF E BUILDING WAS NOT EVEN CONTEMPLATED ON THE PLOT OF L AND IN QUESTION. IT WAS ONLY IN THE YEAR 2001 WHEN THE STATUS OF THE LAND W AS CONVERTED FROM SURPLUS VACANT LAND INTO WITHIN THE CEILING LIMIT LAND BY T HE STATE GOVERNMENT, AN ADDITIONAL BUILDING COULD BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE PLO T IN QUESTION AND ACCORDINGLY BUILDING PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF E B UILDING WAS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON 11.10.2002. IN THIS MANNER, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE PROJECT TO UNDERTAKE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING E COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE AN EXTENSION OF THE EARLIER HOUSING PROJECT. NOTABLY, ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO CO NSTRUCTION OF E BUILDING WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GR OUND THAT IT WAS AN EXTENSION OF THE EARLIER HOUSING PROJECT, WHICH WAS COMPLETED PRIOR TO 01.10.1998 WHEREAS CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING E WAS APPROVED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 11.10.2002. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE S TAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CONSTRUCTION OF E BUILDING CONSTITUTED AN INDEPEN DENT HOUSING PROJECT AND THEREFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE EARLIER HOUSING PRO JECT HAD COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO THE HOUSING PR OJECT CONSISTING OF E BUILDING. THE AFORESAID REASONING SET OUT BY THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT FULLY APPLIES IN THE PRESENT CASE TOO. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, BUILDING G WITH 48 ITA NO.2082/PN/2013 RESIDENTIAL UNITS COULD NOT BE ENVISAGED BY THE ASS ESSEE WHEN IT COMPLETED THE EARLIER PROJECT ON 29.03.2008. SUBSEQUENTLY, I N 2011 ASSESSEE OBTAINED TDRS AND IT IS ONLY THEN THE APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCT ION OF BUILDING G WITH 48 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WAS OBTAINED ON 19.04.2011. THE CONSTRUCTION OF G BUILDING IS A PROJECT INDEPENDENT OF THE EARLIER PROJECT, AN D ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO T HE EARLIER PROJECT CANNOT BE EXAMINED BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CONSTRUCT ION OF G BUILDING UNDERTAKEN VIDE BUILDING PLAN SANCTION DATED 19.04. 2011. 13. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY REVENUE FAILS. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2014. SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-II, PUNE; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PUNE