The ITO, Ward-1, Vapi V. M/s. C.N. Builders and Developers, SILVASSA

ITA 2408/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 72958 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! ! ! ! ' #$, BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER APPEAL(S) BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT SL. NO(S) ITA NO(S) ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) APPELLANT (S) RESPONDENT(S) 1. 2408/AHD/2009 2005-06 ITO WARD-1 VAPI M/S.C.N.BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS GURUDEV COMPLEX SAYALI ROAD SILVASSA PAN NO.AAEFC 3641D 2. 2409/AHD/2009 2006-07 REVENUE ASSESSEE 3. 3131/AHD/2010 2007-08 REVENUE ASSESSEE REVENUE BY : SHRI P.L.KUREEL, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI J.P.SHAH SR.ADV. WITH SHRI M.J.SHAH ' % & $' / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 24/1/2014 )*+ & $' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/1/2014 , / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE O F M/S.C.N.BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VALSA D, (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 29/05/2009 FOR AYS 2005-06 & 2006-07 A ND DATED 21/07/2010 FOR AY 2007-08. SINCE ALL THESE APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE AND COMMON GROUNDS ARE INVOLVED, THESE WER E HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDAT ED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NOS.2408,2049/AHD/2009 & ITA NO.3131/AHD/2010 ITO VS. M/S.C.N.BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS AYS 2005-06,2006-07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY - 2 - 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE ITA NO.2048/AHD/2009 FOR A Y 2005-06. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUC TION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT OF RS.42,57,600/- ON INCOME COMPUTED FROM T HE BUSINESS OF AN UNDERTAKING DEVELOPING AND BUILDING A HOUSING PR OJECT, EVEN THOUGH THE LAND AND APPROVAL IS NOT IN ASSESSEES N AME AND CONSTRUCTION IS NOT AS PER APPROVED PLAN. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUC TION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT OF RS.42,57,600/- ON INCOME COMPUTED FROM T HE BUSINESS OF AN UNDERTAKING DEVELOPING AND BUILDING A HOUSING PR OJECT RELYING ON HONBLE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI) CASE OF SAROJ SALES OR GANISATION VS. ITO (115 TTJ 485) EVENTHOGUH THE ASSESSEE CONSTRUCT ED ONLY 3 OUT OF NINE BUILDINGS AND NOT COMPLETED THE ENTIRE PROJ ECT BEFORE 31/03/2008. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.79,48, 600/- U/S.40(A)(IA) OF IT ACT. 4. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNE D CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED . THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GRO UNDS OF APPEAL. 2.1. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 31/12/2007, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) COMPUTED THE NET INCOME AS PER P&L ACCOUNT OF RS.42,57,600/- AND AL SO MADE DISALLOWANCE U./S.40(A)(IA) OF RS.79,48,6000/-. AG AINST THIS, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO HAS GI VEN DIRECTION TO THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB OF THE ACT OF RS.42 ,57,600/- AND ALSO GIVEN DIRECTION TO THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF ITA NOS.2408,2049/AHD/2009 & ITA NO.3131/AHD/2010 ITO VS. M/S.C.N.BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS AYS 2005-06,2006-07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY - 3 - DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.79,48,600/- U/S.4 0(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), NOW THE RE VENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. GROUND NOS.1 & 2 ARE INTER-CONNECTED. THE LD.SR .DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT TH E LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY APPLIED THE RATIO LAID DOWN B Y THE HONBLE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF SAROJ SALES ORGANIZATION VS. ITO (115 TTJ 485). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADMITTED POSITION REMAINS THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED FOR A COMPOSITE HOUSING PROJECT AND HE HAD NOT COMPLETED THE ENTIRE PROJECT. 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE THOROUGHLY AND AFTER SEEKING REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE TR IBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SAROJ SALES ORGANIZATION VS. ITO. THE LD.C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT RE NDERED IN THE CASE OF VISWAS PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD. VS. ACIT REPORTED AT (2013) 255 CTR (MAD) 149 :: (2013) 81 DTR (MAD) 68. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF BENGAL AMBUJA HO USING DEVELOPMENTS LTD. VS. CIT IN T.C.NOS.1348 AND 1349 OF 2007 DATED ITA NOS.2408,2049/AHD/2009 & ITA NO.3131/AHD/2010 ITO VS. M/S.C.N.BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS AYS 2005-06,2006-07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY - 4 - 10/10/2012 AND ALSO THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BRAHMA ASSOCIATES R EPORTED AT (2011) 333 ITR 289. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY C OVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VISWAS PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON THE BAS IS THAT THE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT AS PER THE APPROVED PLAN, APPRO VED PLAN HAS COMMERCIAL AREA MORE THAN 2000 SQ.FT., PROJECT WILL NOT BE COMPLETED BY 31/03/2008, FINAL COMPLETION CERTIFICATE NOT RECEIV ED, LAND NOT IN ASSESSEES NAME AND APPROVAL ALSO NOT IN ASSESSEES NAME, AREA WILL BE LESS THAN ONE ACRE IF ONLY AREA UNDER B, C, D IS CONSIDERED AND IT IS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY TO CONSTRUCT BUILDINGS DEVIAT ING FROM THE APPROVED PLAN WITHOUT OBTAINING PRIOR PERMISSION FOR DEVIATI ON. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED ALL THESE OBJECTIONS IN HIS ORDER THOROUGHLY AND HAS GIVEN FINDING ON FACT IN PARA-7.3 TO PARA-8 OF HIS ORDER AT PAGE NOS.48 TO 50, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 7.3. HAVING REGARD TO THE ABOVE FACTS AND ANALYSES OF THE PROVISIONS, I FIND THAT THE BASIC CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMING THE D EDUCTION ARE FULFILLED AND THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS:- I. THE PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS A HOUSING PROJECT. A FACT, NO DISPUTED BY AO. II. THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAVE APPROVED THE PROJE CT. A FACT, NO DISPUTED BY AO. III. THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED BEFORE 31 MARCH 2008. A F ACT, NO DISPUTED BY AO. ITA NOS.2408,2049/AHD/2009 & ITA NO.3131/AHD/2010 ITO VS. M/S.C.N.BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS AYS 2005-06,2006-07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY - 5 - IV. THE APPELLANT HAD COMMENCED THE DEVELOPMENT AND CON STRUCTION AFTER 1 ST OCTOBER 1998. A FACT, NOT DISPUTED BY AO. V. THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLETED THE PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY IT BEFORE 31 MARCH 2008. A FACT EVIDENT FROM THE OCCUPANCY C ERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITIES READ ALONG WITH THE APPLI CABLE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL RULES & REGULATIONS. VI. THE PROJECT IS ON THE SIZE OF A PLOT OF LAND, WHICH HAS A MINIMUM AREA OF 1 ACRE. A FACT, EVIDENT FROM THE CERTIFICA TE OF CHIEF OFFICER, SILVASSA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SILVASSA. VII. THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT HAS THE MAXIMUM BUILT-UP AREA AS SPECIFIED. A FACT NOT DISPUTED BY AO. VIII. THE FACT RELATING TO COMMERCIAL AREA OF 2000 SQ.FT. THIS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS PER THE LETTER DATED 27/11/2007 BY TH E ARCHITECT WHERE HE HAS CONFIRMED THAT NO SHOPS HAVE BEEN CONS TRUCTED IN B C & D BUILDINGS. 7.4. VARIOUS ISSUES RAISED BY AO IN CONNECTION WITH FULF ILLMENT OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH WHILE ANALYZI NG THE FACTS AND REASONING FOR DENIAL OF THE DEDUCTION. 7.5. THE BASIC ISSUE, IN THE ENTIRE MATTER, IS WHETHER W HERE AN ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRU CTION OF ONLY A PART OF THE PROJECT, CAN IT BE REGARDED AS A HOUSING PROJECT AND ACCORDINGLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION? IN OTH ER WORDS, CONSIDERING THE PRESENT CASE AND THE FACTS THEREOF, WHERE THE APPELLANT UNDERTOOK THE PROJECT OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF ONLY THREE BUILDINGS OUT OF THE APPROVED PROJECT FOR NINE BUILDINGS, THE PROJECT OF THREE BUILDINGS COULD BE REGARDED AS A HOUSING PROJECT AND, THEREFORE, ELIGIBLE FOR THE DE DUCTION? AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE PROVISIO N TO SUGGEST THAT THE PART UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT AN APPR OVED HOUSING PROJECT. FACTUALLY, IT CANNOT BE SAID IT IS NOT AP PROVED PROJECT. THAT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF AO. ALSO, AS DISCUSSE D EARLIER, IF AUTHORITIES HAVE ISSUED OC (OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE), IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT PROJECT IS NOT COMPLETE. EVEN THAT IS NO T THE CASE OF AO. THEREFORE, THE QUESTION IS WHERE THE OTHER PART OF THE PROJECT IS NOT UNDERTAKEN AND NOT COMPLETE, CAN IT BE SAID THA T PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT COMPLETE? THE A NSWER IS FACTUAL AND OBVIOUSLY NO. IT CANNOT BE SAID ITS N OT COMPLETE. 7.6. SAROJ SALES ORGANISATON V/S. ITO (115 TTJ 485), THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE APPELLANT AND REFERRED EARLIER, TH E HON.TRIBUNAL ITA NOS.2408,2049/AHD/2009 & ITA NO.3131/AHD/2010 ITO VS. M/S.C.N.BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS AYS 2005-06,2006-07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY - 6 - HAS HELD THAT EVEN A PART OF THE PROJECT CONSTITUTE S A HOUSING PROJECT AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION. 7.6.1. THE AO HAS QUESTIONED THE APPLICABILITY OF T HE SAID DECISION ON THE GROUND OF DISSIMILARITY OF THE FACTS. ON GOING THROUGH THE OBJECTIONS, I NOTE THAT THE FACTS POINTED OUT, AS D ISTINGUISHING FACTS, NO DOUBT, ARE NOT PRESENT; BUT THAT IS BECAU SE OF THE TWO- STAGE ACQUISITION OF TWO DIFFERENT PROJECTS BY THE APPELLANT IN THAT CASE FROM THE DEVELOPER. OTHERWISE, THE FACTS REMA IN THE SAME. 7.6.2. APART FROM THAT, THE DECISION CAN BE RELIED UPON FO R THE CLARITY ON THE NATURE OF HOUSING PROJECT CONTEMPLATED BY THE P ROVISION. TO PUT IT DIFFERENTLY, IN PRINCIPLE, THE HON TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT EVEN A PART OF THE PROJECT, OUT OF THE WH OLE, IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION. WHAT IS RELEVANT, FOR THE PRES ENT PURPOSE, IS THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN. 7.6.3. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISI ON I HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION EVEN IF IT HAS UNDERTAKEN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A PART O F THE PROJECT. IN THE RESULT, THE FIRST GROUND OF THE APPEAL, THAT IS, THE ELIGIBILITY TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED AND ACCORDINGLY T HE APPELLANT GETS THE RELIEF TO THAT EXTENT. 4.1. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE DECI SION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SAROJ SALES ORGANIZATION VS. ITO (SUPRA) HA S WRONGLY BEEN APPLIED BY THE LD.CIT(A). WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION AS THE PRINCIPLE LAID IN THE SAID DECISION IS APPLICAB LE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. MOREOVER, WE ARE FORTIFIED WITH THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VISWAS PROMOTERS P VT.LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UNDER THE I DENTICAL FACTS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO SUCCEED BOTH ON TH E PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY AS WELL AS BY REASON OF THE CONSTRU CTION ON THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION HOUSING PROJECT AS REFERRING TO CO NSTRUCTION OF ANY ITA NOS.2408,2049/AHD/2009 & ITA NO.3131/AHD/2010 ITO VS. M/S.C.N.BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS AYS 2005-06,2006-07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY - 7 - BUILDING AND THE WORDINGS IN SECTION 80IB(10) OF TH E ACT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD THAT MERE FACT THAT ONE OF THE BLOCKS HAVE UNITS EXCEEDING BUILT-UP AREA OF 1500 SQ.FT., PER SE, WOU LD NOT RESULT IN NULLIFYING THE REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 80IB(10)(C ) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DO WN BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VISWAS PROMOTERS P VT.LTD. VS. ACIT(SUPRA) COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE LD.CITR( A) HAS GIVEN A DETAILED FINDING ON FACT THAT MEETS ALL THE OBJECT IONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, THESE GROUNDS OF REVENUES APPEAL A RE DISMISSED. 5. THE THIRD GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF DISA LLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.79,48,000/- U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT. THE AO MADE ADDITION U/S.40(A)(IA) IN RESPECT OF RS.79,48,599/- PAID TO M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF B & C BUILDING WITH OUT DEDUCTING TDS. 5.1. THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 5.2. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194-C IS NOT ATTRACTED. HE S UBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MERELY REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENDITURE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THIS GROUND BY OBSERVING THAT ADDITIONAL DISALLOWANCE MADE DO NOT LOOSE THE CHARACTERISTIC OF BEING DERIV ED FROM THE HOUSING PROJECT DEVELOPED BY AN UNDERTAKING AS ITS ORIGINAL SOURCE. THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE EXPENDITURE IS DISALLOWED, THE SAME IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ITA NOS.2408,2049/AHD/2009 & ITA NO.3131/AHD/2010 ITO VS. M/S.C.N.BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS AYS 2005-06,2006-07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY - 8 - ACT ON THE INCOME COMPUTED FROM THE BUSINESS OF AN UNDERTAKING DEVELOPING AND BUILDING A HOUSING PROJECT. SINCE THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A), THEREFORE WE HEREBY UPHEL D THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND REJECT THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEA L. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.240 8/AHD/2009 IS DISMISSED. 8. NOW, WE TAKE UP REMAINING TWO APPEALS OF THE R EVENUE, I.E. ITA NO.2409/AHD/2009 FOR AY 2006-07 AND ITA NO.3131/AHD /2010 FOR AY 2007- 08, WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY T HE REVENUE IN ITS RESPECTIVE APPEALS:- (A) IN ITA NO.2409/AHD/2009 FOR AY 2006-07 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUC TION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT OF RS.42,57,600/- ON INCOME COMPUTED FROM THE B USINESS OF AN UNDERTAKING DEVELOPING AND BUILDING A HOUSING PROJE CT, EVEN THOUGH THE LAND AND APPROVAL IS NOT IN ASSESSEES NAME AND CON STRUCTION IS NOT AS PER APPROVED PLAN. 2.ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUC TION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT OF RS.42,57,600/- ON INCOME COMPUTED FROM THE B USINESS OF AN UNDERTAKING DEVELOPING AND BUILDING A HOUSING PROJE CT RELYING ON HONBLE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI) CASE OF SAROJ SALES ORGAN ISATION VS. ITO (115 TTJ 485) EVENTHOGUH THE ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTED O NLY 3 OUT OF NINE BUILDINGS AND NOT COMPLETED THE ENTIRE PROJECT BEFO RE 31/03/2008. 3. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L EARNED CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED . THE APPELLANT CRAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROU NDS OF APPEAL. (B) IN ITA NO.3131/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2007-08 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUC TION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT OF RS.81,54,803/- ON INCOME COMPUTED FROM THE B USINESS OF AN UNDERTAKING DEVELOPING AND BUILDING A HOUSING PROJE CT, EVEN THOUGH THE ITA NOS.2408,2049/AHD/2009 & ITA NO.3131/AHD/2010 ITO VS. M/S.C.N.BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS AYS 2005-06,2006-07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY - 9 - LAND AND APPROVAL IS NOT IN ASSESSEES NAME AND CON STRUCTION IS NOT AS PER APPROVED PLAN. 2. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L EARNED CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED . THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, MODIFY OR ALTER ANY GR OUNDS DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. 9. THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN BOTH THE CASES AS WER E IN REVENUES APPEAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2005-06. SINCE NO DIFFERENCE IN FACTS COULD BE POINTED OUT BY LD. DR OF THE REVENUE IN THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW THAN TAKEN IN OUR ABOVE ORDER PASSED IN REVENU ES APPEAL, I.E. ITA NO.2408/AHD/2009 FOR AY 2005-06. HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) FOR AYS 2006-07 & 2007-08. THU S, THESE REVENUES APPEALS FOR BOTH THE YEARS ARE HEREBY DIS MISSED. 10. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS O F THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) (' #$) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 31/01/2014 /'.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NOS.2408,2049/AHD/2009 & ITA NO.3131/AHD/2010 ITO VS. M/S.C.N.BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS AYS 2005-06,2006-07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY - 10 - , & 0$1 21+$ , & 0$1 21+$ , & 0$1 21+$ , & 0$1 21+$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 34 / THE APPELLANT 2. 0534 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! $ '6 / CONCERNED CIT 4. '6() / THE CIT(A)-VALSAD 5. 1 #7 0$ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 789 :% / GUARD FILE. ,' ,' ,' ,' / BY ORDER, 51$ 0$ //TRUE COPY// ; ;; ;/ // / !< !< !< !< ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 30.1.14 (DICTATION-PAD 13- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 31.1.14 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.31.1.14 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 31.1.14 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER