Arun Pitamber Sheth, Pune V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 226/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1703 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUHAS S KULKARNI
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E , , !'#'' $ , % & BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NO. 226/PN/2014 %' ( ')( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI ARUN PITAMBER SHETH, 105, SUNITA BUNGLOW, MUKUNDNAGAR, PUNE-411037 PAN : ACGPS6044Q ....... / APPELLANT ' / V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI REVENUE BY : SHRI SUHAS S. KULKARNI / DATE OF HEARING : 07-06-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-06-2016 * / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, PUNE DATED 30-08 -2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 39 DAYS. THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT CITING REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL HAS BEEN ATTR IBUTED TO THE 2 ITA NO. 226/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 ABSENCE OF ASSESSEE IN INDIA DURING THE PERIOD WHEN APPE AL WAS TO BE FILED WITHIN LIMITATION PERIOD. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS TRAVELLING TO USA AND RETURNED TO INDIA ON 11-01-2014. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A PHOTOCOPY OF THE PASSPORT TO SUBSTANTIAT E HIS CONTENTIONS. AS PER THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE TH E LIMITATION FOR FILING OF THE APPEAL ENDED ON 28-12-2013, THE ASSESSEE RET URNED TO INDIA ON 11-02-2014 AND AFTER RETURNING BACK TO INDIA T HE ASSESSEE FELL ILL. THE APPEAL COULD BE FILED ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSEE RECOV ERED FROM ILLNESS. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT DELIBERATE OR WILLFUL. TH E ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE DELAY OF 39 DAYS IN FILING OF APPEAL IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTED TO BE HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF ON MERITS. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORD S ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS A DEVELOPER AND BUILDER. THE ASSESSEE HAD DEVELOPED A HOUSING PROJECT SANSKRITI AT WAKAD, PUNE COMPRISING OF FO UR AMALGAMATED PLOTS. THE ASSESSEE PROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT BUILDINGS A, B, C, D, E AND G ON THE AFORESAID PLOTS. THE COMMENCEMENT C ERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF BUILDINGS D, E AND G WAS ISSUED ON 21-04-2004, 17-09-2004 AND 21-06-2005, RESPECTIVELY. FOR AVAILING DEDUCTION U/S . 80IB(10) THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT ON OR B EFORE 31-03-2009. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF ` 4,12,30,793/- U/S. 80IB(10) ON THE AFORESAID PROJECT COMPRISING OF BUILDINGS D, E AND G. THE AS SESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON GROUND THAT THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 30-11-2009 ISSUED BY THE PCMC IS AFTER THE DUE D ATE OF 3 ITA NO. 226/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 COMPLETION OF PROJECT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80I B(10)(A) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23-12-2011, T HE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REJECTE D THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. SHRI M.K. KULKARNI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY REASON FOR DENYING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) TO THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PCMC IS AFTER THE LAST DATE I.E. 31-03-2009 AS SPECIFIED UNDER CLAUS E (A) OF SECTION 80IB(10). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTEN DED THAT THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECT IN DECEMBER, 2008 ITSE LF. THE LD. COUNSEL REFERRED TO THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TH E ARCHITECT, PLACED AT PAGE 127 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED FOR THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE TO THE PCMC ON 25-03-2009 I.E. BEFORE THE LAST DATE OF COMPLETION OF PROJE CT AS ENVISAGED U/S. 80IB(10)(A). THE PCMC ISSUED CERTIFICATE ON 3 0-11- 2009. THE DELAY IN ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE CANNOT BE ATTRIB UTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. HINDUSTAN SAMUH AW AS LTD. REPORTED AS 62 TAXMANN.COM 175 (BOMBAY). THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E . ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHEREIN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUC TION U/S. 80IB(10) WAS REJECTED ON SIMILAR GROUND. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 625/PN/2012 DECIDED ON 31-07-2013 HA D REMITTED 4 ITA NO. 226/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESS EE. NOW, THE MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI SUHAS S. KULKARNI REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE U/ S. 80IB(10). THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SHO W FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETE ON OR BEFORE 31 -03-2009. THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PCMC IS DATED 30-11-2 009 WHICH IS MUCH AFTER THE DUE DATE AS SPECIFIED UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 80IB(10) FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION. THE LD. DR PRAYED FOR DISMISSIN G THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENT ATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE REFERRED DURING THE COURSE OF MAKING SUBMISSIONS BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE AND DECISION ON WHICH THE RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U /S. 80IB(10) ON THE HOUSING PROJECT SANSKRITI COMPRISING OF BUILDINGS D , E AND G DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REASON FOR REJECTING TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CO MPLETE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME/DUE DATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CLAUSE (A) O F SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE INITIAL CERTIFICATE OF COMMENCEMENT IN RESPECT OF BUILDING D WAS ISSUED BY THE PCMC ON 21-04-2004. ACCO RDINGLY, THE DUE DATE FOR COMPLETION OF PROJECT WAS ON OR BEFORE 31-0 3-2009. THE ASSESSEE PLACED ON RECORD THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATE D 30-11-2009 ISSUED BY THE PCMC AT PAGE 126 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE CONTENTION OF 5 ITA NO. 226/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETE MUCH PR IOR TO THAT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 25-12-2008 ISS UED BY THE ARCHITECT OF THE PROJECT AT PAGE 127 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE FLAT OWNERS AT PAGES 7 TO 125 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE A SSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR ISSUING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE TO PC MC ON 25-03-2009, THE DELAY IN ISSUANCE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE B Y PCMC CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX VS. HINDUSTAN SAMUH AWAS LTD. (SUPRA) WHILE DEA LING WITH THE SIMILAR ISSUE WHERE THE ASSESSEE COMPLETED THE HOUSIN G PROJECT ON TIME AND FILED AN APPLICATION FOR SEEKING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE TO THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME. THE HON'BLE H IGH COURT HELD THAT THE DELAY IN ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE CANNO T BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR EXEM PTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE JUDGME NT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IS AS UNDER : 11. THE QUESTION WE RAISE HERE IS WHETHER THE EXPLANATI ON INTRODUCED AN ELEMENT OF HARSHNESS TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT IT R ENDERED THE MAIN PROVISION NUGATORY? IN OUR VIEW, THE EXPLANATION IS INTRODUCED RECENTLY TO PUT AN END TO A CONTROVERSY, WHICH MIGHT ARISE BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE DATE OF COMPLETION. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IN PROVIDING EXPLANATION TO FIX THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF A PROJECT IS QUITE HELPFUL WHEN THIS PROVISION IS UTILIZED IN PRACTICE . IN OUR VIEW THE EXPLANATION HAS INTRODUCED AN UNNECESSARILY STRICTN ESS IN THE PROVISION WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF EXEMPTION AND NOT IN THE NATURE OF CHARGING. SUB-SECTION (10) MENTIONS THAT A HOUSING PROJECT SH OULD BE COMPLETE BEFORE 31.03.2008 SO AS TO GET THE EXEMPTION. COMP LETION OF HOUSING PROJECT IS A PHYSICAL ACT. IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED O N THE SPOT AND ALSO THROUGH A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY AN ARCHITECT WHO IS APPOINTED FOR SUPERVISING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK. HE IS A PROFESSI ONAL WHO WOULD DECLARE THAT THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE. UNFORTUNATELY , SUB-SECTION (10) AND THE EXPLANATION DO NOT GIVE ANY IMPORTANCE TO THE I SSUANCE OF SUCH COMPLETION CERTIFICATE BY THE CONCERNED ARCHITECT. IT GIVES IMPORTANCE ONLY TO THE CERTIFICATE OF MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY. IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT AN APPLICATION FOR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED TO THE MUNICIPAL 6 ITA NO. 226/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 AUTHORITIES IS ACCOMPANIED BY A COMPLETION CERTIFIC ATE ISSUED BY THE CONCERNED ARCHITECT. NO DOUBT, THE MUNICIPAL AUTHOR ITIES THEN CAUSE INSPECTION OF THE SITE AND VERIFY THE CLAIM. THERE AFTER, THEY ISSUE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. BUT, IF A PROJECT IS REALLY COMPLETE BEFORE 31.03.2008 AND AN APPLICATION IS MOVED QUITE IN TIM E, FOR SEEKING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THE MUNICIPAL A UTHORITIES, AND IF THEY DO NOT TAKE STEPS URGENTLY AND DELAY THE ISSUANCE O F COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THEIR SIDE, CAN IT BE SAID THAT SU CH CERTIFICATE WOULD ALONE DECIDE THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT? THE A NSWER IS IN NEGATIVE. 1 2. IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE ARCHITEC T OF THE PROJECT HAD GIVEN A CERTIFICATE PRIOR TO 31.03.2008. THE RESPON DENT SUBMITTED APPLICATION TO THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY ALONG WITH S UCH CERTIFICATE WELL IN TIME ON 25.03.2008. IT SEEMS THAT THE MUNICIPAL AUT HORITIES DIRECTED THE RESPONDENT TO DEPOSIT CERTAIN AMOUNT FOR ISSUANCE O F COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ON 27.03.2008 AND THE AMOUNT WAS ACCORD INGLY DEPOSITED ON 31.03.2008. THEREAFTER, THE CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED IN OCTOBER, 2008. THIS DELAY CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE RESPONDENT ASSESS EE. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THA T THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN THE SEC OND ROUND OF LITIGATION IS PENDING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) FOR FINAL ADJUDICATION. SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE TRIBUNAL REMITTED THE MAT TER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE MATTER AFRESH. A PER USAL OF THE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 625/PN/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 D ECIDED ON 31-07-2013 REVEAL THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(1 0) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE O N THE SIMILAR GROUNDS. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE CO-O RDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE REPRODUCED HERE-IN-UNDER: 7. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND P ERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DEVELOPER AND CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CL AIMED TO HAVE FOLLOWED PARENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD FOR COMPUTING ELIGIBILITY PROFIT FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE HOUSING PR OJECT WAS APPROVED AND THE SAME WAS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED BY 31-3-2 009. CONSIDERING THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IT WAS NOT INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSES SEE TO SUBMIT THE COMPLETI ON CERTIFICATE EVERY YEAR AND IT WAS SUFFICIENT IF IT WAS SUBMITTED ONCE WHEN THE ENSUING PROJECT WAS COMPLETED. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE D ENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT FOR THE PROFITS OF HOUSING PROJECT FOR A.Y. 2009=-09 ON THE PARITY OF REASONING THAT THE C OMPLETION CERTIFICATE 7 ITA NO. 226/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 WAS GRANTED BY AUTHORITIES EFFECTIVE FROM 4-5-2009 AND THEREFORE, THE PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETE PRIOR TO 31-3-2009. THE CL AIM OF DEDUCTION WAS NEGATED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HOLDING THAT THE P ROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETE BY 31-3-2009. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HA S BEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE AS FAR AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS CONCERNED PRODUCING SUCH VITAL EVI DENCES AS DISCUSSED AND MENTIONED IN AFFIDAVIT DEPOSED BY ASS ESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDING TO HIM, IT WAS NECESS ARY TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER ADMITTING THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCES AS PROVIDED IN RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES 1963. (A) THE CERTIFICATE OF THE ARCHITECT OF THE APPELLA NT-ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TO LOCAL AUTHORITY APPROVING THE PROJECT CERTIFYING THAT THE PROJECT WAS SUPERVISED BY HER AND HAS BEEN COMP LETED ACCORDING TO PLANS SANCTIONED BEING DT. 25-3-2009. (B)THE LICENCE TO WORK THE LIFT LOCATION 223/1, 223 /3, 228/5, 228/6 DT. 09-03-2009. (C) THE LICENCE TO WORK THE LIFT -A/ 4109/11/08, 22 8/5, 6 DT. 31-3-2009. (D) THE LICENCE TO WORK THE LIFT LOCATION 223/2, 22 8/5, 228/6 DT.09-03-2009 A/4110/11/08. (E) THE LICENCE TO WORK THE LIFT. 228/5, 6 DT. 31-3 -2009: A/4/108/11/08. (F) WATER SUPPLY NOC. CERTIFYING THE INSTALLATION O F WATER TANK (378900 LTRS) WAS COMPLETE. (G) THE NOC FROM FIRE DEPARTMENT DT 20-3-2009. 8. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED AR THE ABOVE EVIDENCE I NDICATED THAT THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS PRIOR TO BY 31 -3-2009 AND THE FLAT OWNERS HAVE ALSO OCCUPIED SUCH FLATS PRIOR TO 31-3- 2009. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT THE COMPLETION C ERTIFICATE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE PRODUCED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT SINCE IT WAS FOLLOWING THE PERCENTAGE COMPL ETION METHOD FOR ITS ACCOUNTING. UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ON 30-11-20009. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR PRODUCING THE AFO REMENTIONED DOCUMENTS. NOW THE ISSUE THAT ARISES WHETHER THE PR OJECT IN QUESTION WAS COMPLETED BY 31-3-2009. THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AT HAND ON M ERITS. SO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE MAT TER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADMIT THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AT HAND AS PER FACT A ND LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSE E. SINCE WE ARE REMITTING THE MATTER ON A TECHNICAL GROUND, WE ARE REFRAINING FROM COMMENTING ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE AT HAND. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. 8 ITA NO. 226/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 9. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE FOR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WITH SIMILAR ISSUE IS PENDING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE PRESENT APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR DECIDING THIS ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. HINDUSTAN SAMUH AWAS LTD. (SUPRA). 10. IN THE RESULT, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 08 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 08 TH JUNE, 2016 RK *+,%-.#/#)- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' () / THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE 4. ' / THE CIT-II, PUNE 5. !*+ %%,- , ,- , . ./0 , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. + 1 23 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #4 / BY ORDER, %5 ,0 / PRIVATE SECRETARY, ,- , / ITAT, PUNE