SUNIL VISHAMBARNATH TIWARI, Nagpur V. I.T.O. Ward 1(4), Nagpur

ITA 240/NAG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6050 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VITTHAL BHOSALE
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause
• Section: 139; 80IB; 139(1); 139(4); 13; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI O.P. KANT, AM ITA No. 240/NAG/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari, 87, Panchvati Builders, Hindustan Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur- 440015. Vs. I.T.O. Ward 1(4), Nagpur. PAN No.: AALPT 0719 L Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri Mahavir Atal (CA) Revenue by : Shri Vitthal Bhosale (Sr.DR) Date of Hearing: 28/10/2021 Date of Pronouncement: 20/12/2021 ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Nagpur dated 30/05/2014 for the A.Y. 2009-10 wherein following grounds have been raised: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in endorsing the view taken by the A.O. of disallowing claim of the assessee. 3. Assessee craves leave to add and alter any other ground that may be taken at the time of hearing.” 2. In this appeal, there is delay of 363 days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has filed an application for condoning the delay and the contents of the same are as under: ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO 2 “With your kind permission, I wish to file an appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Nagpur. There is delay of 363 days in filing appeal. The order is passed by the First Appellate Authority on 30/05/2014, which was received by my counsel Shri Adv. M Mani. Dismissal of said appeal was informed to me by my counsel, who also advised me to file an appeal before the ITAT against said order. Based on his advised, I asked him to file an appeal to the ITAT. But before the limitation period of sixty days ended Mr. Mani’s health started detoriating and he left for heavenly abode on 16 th October, 2014. The office of Mr. Mani is closed since then Mr. Mani used to reside with his wife, she had very little knowledge of record keeping of Mr. M Mani. In the meantime, I met with an accident where my left leg was fractured and I was confined to bed for almost six months. If required, I can file entire sets of medical reports and affidavit. It was only when I started working on daily routine, I visited Mr. Mani’s house searched for file but same was not traceable. Now I am filing an appeal after obtaining a photocopy of same from the department. It is because of all this reason and because of the fact that I met with an accident, I was not able to file an appeal in time. It is my humble submission that this delay may please be condoned and I may be given a reasonable opportunity to present my case. For this act of kindness, I shall always remain obliged.” 3. On the other hand, the ld DR could not rebut the facts submitted by the assessee before us for seeking condonation of delay. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on record. There is no dispute and is an admitted fact that there ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO 3 has been a delay in filing the present appeal by 363 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The explanation of the assessee therefore becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on his part in not presenting the present appeal within the prescribed time. In the instant case, it has been stated by the assessee that due to sudden demise of his counsel the file could not be traceable as well as due to left leg fracture of the assessee, the appeal could not be filed on time before the Tribunal. 5. In case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the expression ‘Sufficient Cause’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub-serves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. It was further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that such liberal approach is adopted on one of the principles that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO 4 a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Another principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. It was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of male fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. In the instant case, applying the same principles, we find that there is no culpable negligence or malafide on the part of the assessee in delayed filing of the present appeal and it does not stand to benefit by resorting to such delay more so considering the fact that it has applied for settlement of present dispute and payment of appropriate taxes. Therefore, in the factual matrix of the present case, we find that there exists sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. 6. In light of aforesaid discussions, in exercise of powers under section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay in filing the present appeal ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO 5 as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 7. Brief facts of the case are that return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 27/10/2009 declaring total income of Rs. 3,43,630/-. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and accordingly, after serving statutory notices and seeking reply of the assessee, the A.O. made disallowance U/s 80IB of the Act as claimed by the assessee. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the claim of deduction U/s 80IB of the Act by upholding the order of A.O. 9. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the ITAT on the grounds mentioned above. 10. Both the grounds raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee and upholding the disallowances made U/s 80IB of the Act, therefore, we thought it fit to adjudicate both the grounds through this consolidated order. ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO 6 11. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also relied upon the written submissions filed before the ld. CIT(A) as well as before us and contents of the same are reproduced below: “1.1 There was delay in filing income tax return by 27 days, but the appellant has filed audit report in time. [Due date for filing re turn of income and audit report was 30/09/2009. The appellant filed audit report on 30/ 09/ 2009 and the return of income was filed on 27/ 10/ 2009.] (ITR and Audit report is placed in paper book at page 1 to 8) 1.2 The appellant's submission is that the return filed belatedly, but within the time limit prescribed under section 139(4) should be taken as sufficient compliance for the purpose of section 80AC. 1.3 Judicial Precedents relied by the Appellant to support the submission that the return filed under section 139(4) should be considered as sufficient compliance under section 80AC Trustee of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable and Chaleshwar Temple Trust Vs CIT (207 ITR 368) (Bom)(HC). (Paper book pg No 135)(Vol -2) In this case the issue before, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court was disallowance of exemption under section 11, as the assessee trust belated filed return of income under section 139(4). (Section stipulates filing of return under section 139(1) for exercising an option u/s 11(1). Para 5 of the Judgment ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO 7 5. "On a careful reading of section 139 we are of the clear opinion that sub sections (1) and (4) of section 139 have to be read together and on such a reading, the inevitable conclusion is that a return made within the time specified in sub-section (4) has to be considered as having been made within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 139. In other words, if a return is filed within the time specified in sub section (4) of section 139 and the option contemplated by the Explanation to section 11(1) is exercised in writing along with such return, the requirements of the Explanation to section 11(1) would stand satisfied," Sukhkarta Developers and Builders Vs PCIT (Nagpur) (Trib) 596 & 597/Nag/2016 dated 01/08/2018 (Paper book page No 53) In this case, the issue before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Nagpur Tribunal, was regarding assumption of jurisdiction under section 263, as the Assessee has filed return of income under section 139(4) and not under section 139(1) as stipulated by section 80AC. The Tribunal relied on the aforementioned judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Trustee of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable and Chaleshwar Temple Trust Vs CIT (207 ITR 368) (Bom)(HC) and stated that belated return filed under section 139(4) should be treated as return filed under section 139(1). Para 12 and 13 of the Judgment (Paper book Page No 58) 12. From the above exposition from the Honble jurisdictional High Court which duly has the mandate from the Hon'ble Apex Court, it transpires that the submission of return within time as specified under sub section (4) of section 139 has to be taken as sufficient compliance for the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it was expounded that the sub section (1) and sub section (4) of section 139 have to be read together and, hence, it is the inevitable conclusion that a return made within the time specified in sub section (4) has ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO 8 to be considered as having been made within the time prescribed in sub section (1) of the Act. 13. On the touch stone of the above said exposition, we find that there is no infirmity in the Assessing Officer's order on granting the assessee the deduction u/ s. 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is not the case that the returns were filed beyond the time limit for sub section 139(4). ITO Vs Uma Developers (Mumbai)(Trib) ITA No 7718/Mum/2014 dated 10/08/2016. Disallowance of claim under section 80IB, by invoking provisions of section 80AC for filing of return of income beyond time provided under section 139(1). The Hon'ble Tribunal, followed aforementioned judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court has decided in the favour of the assessee, as return was filed within the extended period provided under section 139(4). Relevant extract para 3.4.2 of the Judgment, "We concur with the view of the learned CIT(A) that as per the ratio of the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Trustees of Tulsidas Gopc4ji Charitable & Chaleshwar Temple Trust (supra) and of the Coordinate Bench n the Yash Developers (supra), even, in cases where the return of income is filed beyond the due date stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act, the deduction should not be disallowed under section 143(7) of the Act merely in view of the provisions of section 80C of the Act Late Hussein Ismail Dawoodani Vs DCIT (Mumbai) (Trib) 194/Mum/2017 dated 27/11/2018. (Paper book Pg No 61) In this case, among many issues, the one issue is regarding disallowance of 8016 deduction for belated filing of return. The Hon'ble ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO 9 Tribunal following the aforementioned judgment of the Jurisdictional Bombay High Court, decided in favour of the assessee and held that the return filed under section 139(4) will be treated as sufficient compliance. Para 16 of the Judgment (Paper book, Page No 73) 16. "After having gone through the facts of present case and after perusing the submissions of both the parties we found that identical issue has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Uma Developers (supra) wherein it was categorically held that the claim of the assessee cannot be disallowed under section 80IB(10) of the Act only on the ground that the return of income was filed beyond the period stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act in view of the provisions of Section 80AC of the Act as the same is beyond the scope of Section 139(1) of the Act the submission of return within time as specified under sub section (4) of section 139 has to be taken as sufficient compliance for the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it was expounded that the sub section (1) and sub section (4) of section 139 have to be read together." M/s Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals P.Ltd Vs DCIT (Chandigarh] (Trib) 501, / Chd/ 2017 dated. 04/10/2017. In this case, before the Tribunal, the assessee has filed audit report in time, but belated filed return of income. The court after perusal of all the facts held that the provisions of filing return under section 139(1) are directory in nature and return filed under section 139(4) will be treated as sufficient compliance. Para 6.7 of the judgment, Paper book Page No 102. 6.7. Accordingly, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and position of law as canvassed by the parties before the Bench, we hold that the claim of the assessee could not be ousted on the fact that the return was filed within the extended period of sub section(4) of Section 139. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee deserves to succeed in principle. ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO 10 2.1 Disallowance on the basis of non submission of completion certificate. * The crucial facts of the case, are that the appellants housing scheme was constructed in the Bhilgaon Village on the outskirts of Nagpur City. * The approval for the construction of the said scheme was taken on 31/01/2006 (i.e.) in A.Y. 2006-07. * The approval was taken from the Gram Pacnhayat of Bhilgaon in 2006, as the land was situated outside the Municipal limit of the Nagpur City. * As per the 80IB provisions, the construction should be completed within 5 years. Therefore, starting from A.Y, 2006-07, the construction should be completed till A.Y. 2011-12. * The present appeal is for A.Y. 2009-10 (i.e.) third year. The assessment for the present appeal was completed on 28/12/2011. * It was submitted during the assessment proceedings, that for the year under consideration the project was not complete and hence no completion certificate was obtained. * However, Assessing Officer and first appellate authority negated appellant's submission. * The important fact which the appellant wishes to place on record is the first appellate order for A.Y. 2010- 1. l(Succeeding year). (Paper book Pg No 9 to 23) * For A.Y. 2010-11 (i.e.) succeeding year, the Assessing Officer made similar disallowance in the assessment for non submission of completion certificate. * Aggrieved with the disallowance [A.Y 2010-11], the appellant carried matter to the First Appellate Authority. The learned Commissioner on the basis of completion certificate of the architect and other circumstantial evidences, allowed the appeal of the appellant by relying on the Jurisdictional Nagpur Tribunal in the case of New High Rise Construction. ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO 11 * Therefore, as far as the completion of the project, the issue is no more res-integra. [ Photocopy of CIT(A) order for A.Y. 201011 is available on page no 9 of Paper book, operating paragraph 6.2.4 is at page no 22 of the paper book]. * Therefore, as the project is completed in 2011 and the same fact is already on record, the appellant has complied with all the conditions of the section 80IB. Considering the fact that the appellant has substantially complied with all the provisions. We humbly request your kindness to allow appellant benefit of the benevolent provisions of section 80IB. For this act of kindness, the appellant shall always remain obliged.” 12. On the contrary, the ld. DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 13. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material placed on record. From the facts, we noticed that initially the assessee claimed deduction U/s 80IB of the Act. However, the said claim of the assessee was rejected by the A.O. on two reasons i.e. (i) that the return of income was required to be filed by the assessee U/s 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration up till 30/09/2009. However, the same was filed by the assessee on 27/10/2009 which was beyond due date of filing of return of income and (ii) the assessee had obtained approval from the local authority to develop the project on 30/01/2006 and accordingly, the assessee was liable to complete the project by 31/3/2011. However, the assessee has failed to submit the completion certificate. Thus, on these two ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO 12 grounds, the claim of deduction U/s 80IB of the Act was rejected. In this regard, the ld. AR specifically submitted before us that the accounts of the assessee were audited and tax audit report was filed by the assessee well within time and the only reason for filing belated return of income was on account of ill health of Advocate who used to file income tax return of the assessee. It was further submitted by the ld. AR that although there was delay in filing of income tax return by 27 days but the assesse has duly filed the audited report in time and in this regard, the ld. AR has drawn our attention to the paper book filed before us which carries pages from 1 to 134 and in this paper book the income tax return, computation and tax audit report has already been filed which is at page Nos. 1 to 8 of the paper book. It was further submitted by the ld. AR that although, the return of income was filed belatedly but still the same was within the time limit prescribed U/s 139(4) of the Act. Thus, in this way, there was sufficient compliance by the assessee for the purpose of Section 80AC of the Act. In this regard, the ld. AR has relied upon the decisions in the cases of Trustee of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable and Chaleshwar Temple Trust Vs CIT (207 ITR 368) (Bom)(HC), Sukhkarta Developers and Builders Vs PCIT (Nagpur) (Trib) 596 & 597/Nag/2016 dated 01/08/2018, ITO Vs Uma Developers (Mumbai) (Trib) ITA No 7718/Mum/2014 dated 10/08/2016, Late Hussein Ismail Dawoodani Vs DCIT (Mumbai) (Tribj 194/Mum/2017 dated ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO 13 27/11/2018 and M/s Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd Vs DCIT (Chandigarh] (Trib) 501,/Chd/2017 dated 04/10/2017. On the contrary, the ld. DR has categorically submitted that since there was non- compliance on the part of the assessee for seeking deduction U/s 80IB of the Act, therefore, the same was rightly denied by the lower authorities. 14. After having meticulously gone through the facts of the present case as well as after having gone through the documents placed on record by the ld. AR by way of paper book, we found that although there was delay of 27 days on the part of assessee for filing the return of income but audit report was filed by the assessee in time and this fact has not been disputed by the ld. DR. We have further noticed that delayed filing of return of income was within the time limit prescribed U/s 139(4) of the Act which according to us is a sufficient compliance for the purpose of Section 80AC of the Act. In this regard, we draw strength from the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Trustee of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable and Chaleshwar Temple Trust Vs CIT (207 ITR 368) (Bom)(HC) wherein it was held as under: 5. "On a careful reading of section 139 we are of the clear opinion that sub sections (1) and (4) of section 139 have to be read together and on such a reading, the inevitable conclusion is that a return made within the time specified in sub-section (4) has to be considered as having been made within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 139. In other words, if a return is filed within the time specified in sub section (4) of section 139 and the ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO 14 option contemplated by the Explanation to section 11(1) is exercised in writing along with such return, the requirements of the Explanation to section 11(1) would stand satisfied," We also draw strength from the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sukhkarta Developers and Builders Vs PCIT (Nagpur) (Trib) 596 & 597/Nag/2016 dated 01/08/2018 wherein it was held as under: “12. From the above exposition from the Honble jurisdictional High Court which duly has the mandate from the Hon'ble Apex Court, it transpires that the submission of return within time as specified under sub section (4) of section 139 has to be taken as sufficient compliance for the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it was expounded that the sub section (1) and sub section (4) of section 139 have to be read together and, hence, it is the inevitable conclusion that a return made within the time specified in sub section (4) has to be considered as having been made within the time prescribed in sub section (1) of the Act. 13. On the touch stone of the above said exposition, we find that there is no infirmity in the Assessing Officer's order on granting the assessee the deduction u/ s. 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is not the case that the returns were filed beyond the time limit for sub section 139(4).” Thus, as per the facts of the present case, although, the assessee has filed the audit report in time but belated filed return of income, therefore, after considering the legal proposition as framed down in the aforementioned orders/judgments by different judicial authorities, we are of the view that the provision of filing of return of income U/s 139(1) are directory in nature ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO 15 and return filed U/s 139(4) of the Act is to be treated as sufficient compliance. Even the identical issue has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sukhkarta Developers and Builders Vs PCIT (supra) wherein it was categorically held that claim of the assessee cannot be disallowed U/s 80IB of the Act only on the ground that the return of income was filed beyond the period stipulated U/s 139(1) of the Act in view of provisions of Section 80AC of the Act as the same is beyond the scope of Section 139(1) of the Act. The submission of return within time as specified under sub-section (4) of Section 139 has to be taken as sufficient compliance in the provisions of the Act as it was expounded that sub-section (1) and sub-section (4) of Section 139 have to be read together. Thus, keeping in view the above settled provisions of law, we reach to an inevitable conclusion that the return of income so filed by the assessee in the present case within the time specified in sub-section (4) of Section 139 of the Act has to be considered as filed within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act. Thus, on this ground, no disallowance U/s 80IB of the Act was warranted. Thus, the assessee succeeds on this account. 15. Now the second ground for disallowance of deduction U/s 80IB of the Act to the assessee was on account of non-submissions of completion certificate. In this regard, the ld AR has drawn our attention to the crucial ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO 16 facts of the case that the assessee’s housing scheme was constructed in the Bhilgaon Village on the outskirts of Nagpur City and the approval for the construction of the said scheme was obtained by the assessee 31/01/2006 i.e. in A.Y. 2006-07 and the said approval was taken from the Gram Pacnhayat of Bhilgaon in 2006 as during that period, the land was situated outside the Municipal limit of the Nagpur City. It was further submitted that as per provisions of Section 80IB of the Act, the construction should be completed within 5 years, thus, starting from A.Y, 2006-07, the construction in the case of assessee should have been completed till A.Y. 2011-12. Since the present appeal is for A.Y. 2009-10, thus, according to the ld. AR, it was third year and the assessment for the present appeal was completed on 28/12/2011. Ld. AR specifically submitted before us that during the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration, the project was not completed and thus the assessee had not obtained completion certificate but the said contention of the assessee negated by both the lower authorities. In order to substantiate its submission, the ld. AR outrightly submitted before us the order of ld. CIT(A) for the subsequent assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2010-11 which is at paper book page No. 9 to 23 wherein the A.O. also made identical disallowance on the ground of non- submission of completion certificate but aggrieved by the said disallowance, the assessee carried the matter to the first appellate authority and the ld. CIT(A) on the basis of completion certificate of the architect and while ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO 17 taking into consideration the other circumstantial evidences, allowed the appeal of the assessee by relying on the Jurisdictional Nagpur Tribunal in the case of New High Rise Construction Vs. ITO ITA No. 285/Nag/2015 order dated 18/01/2017. 16. On the contrary, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 17. After having gone through the facts of this issue, we found from the record that the approval of the construction of the said project was granted in favour of the assessee on 31/01/2006 i.e. in A.Y. 2006-07 and thus, in this way, the construction ought to have been completed till A.Y. 2011-12. Since the assessee could not place on record the completion certificate, therefore, in absence of the said completion certificate, the claim of the assessee was denied u/s 80IB of the Act. However, after having gone through the order of the ld. CIT(A) in the succeeding year i.e. AY 2010-11 which is at page No. 9-23 of the paper book, we found that the ld. CIT(A) under the identical facts and circumstances on the basis of completion certificate of the architect and other circumstantial evidences, allowed the appeal of the assessee by relying upon the decision of the Nagpur Tribunal in the case of New High Rise Construction Vs. ITO (supra). Thus, in our view, as far as the completion of projection is concerned, the issue is no more resintgra as the Revenue in the subsequent assessment year have ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO 18 thus admitted that the project of the assessee in question was completed in 2011 and the assessee had complied with all the conditions of Section 80IB of the Act. Thus, in order of maintain consistency, we also relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of New High Rise Construction Vs. ITO ITA No. 285/Nag/2015 order dated 18/01/2017 wherein the architect’s certificate and other circumstantial and indirect evidences were held to be sufficient for the purpose of allowing deduction U/s 80IB (10) of the Act. Thus, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we restore this issue back to the file of the A.O. with direction to consider architect’s certificate and other circumstantial and indirect evidences put forth by the assessee and in case, the assessee fulfills the conditions as laid down by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of New High Rise Construction Vs. ITO (supra) then the A.O. is directed to allow deduction U/s 80IB(10) of the Act. We direct accordingly. 18. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 by placing the details on the notice board. Sd/- Sd/- (O.P. KANT) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) Accountant Member Judicial Member Nagpur Dated:- 20/12/2021 *Ranjan ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO 19 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari, Nagpur. 2. The Respondent- The I.T.O., Ward 1(4), Nagpur. 3. CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Nagpur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 240/Nag/2015) By order, Asst. Registrar