Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle -2 (3), Pune V. M/s. Sukhwani Chawla Erectors, Pune

ITA 264/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9648 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBHAKANT SAHU

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 261 to 264/PUN/2019 नधा रण वष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Pune Vs. M/s. Sukhwani Chawla Erectors, Prasun Arcade, Office No.3, Ist Floor, Lane opp. Gokul Hotel, Pimpri, Pune 411 018 PAN : AABFS4781R Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH : This batch of four appeals by the Revenue relating to the assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-16 arise out of a common order passed by the CIT(A)-12, Pune on 13-11-2018. Since all these appeals are based on similar facts and common grounds, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Assessee by Shri Jitendra Jain Revenue by Shri Subhakant Sahu Date of hearing 25-01-2022 Date of pronouncement 27-01-2022 ITA Nos. 261 to 264/PUN/2019 M/s. Sukhwani Chawla Erectors 2 A.Y. 2012-13 : 2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against allowing proportionate deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’). 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee has been engaged in the business as Builders and Promoters. Receipts from sale of flats in project “Dynasty” located at Wakad, Pune, were shown at Rs.90.33 crore. The assessee computed profit from the same at Rs.33,56,49,265/- and claimed deduction u/s.80IB(10) on the same in the original return filed by it. However, in the return filed u/s.153C of the Act, the assessee reduced the amount of deduction u/s.80IB(10) to Rs.33,40,76,218/- by suo motu disallowing deduction in respect of one flat which was sold for Rs.15.73 lakh. This was done for the raison d`etre that two flats, numbering, D-203 and F-903 were sold to Ms. Neelima Rane in violation of the provisions of section 80IB(10)(f). The AO held that the assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(10) in entirety because of the violation in selling two flats to one person. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessee’s contention by holding that deduction u/s.80IB(10) was to be allowed on proportionate basis in respect of the portion of ITA Nos. 261 to 264/PUN/2019 M/s. Sukhwani Chawla Erectors 3 the total project to which there was no violation of the provisions. The Revenue has approached the Tribunal against the relief allowed in the first appeal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions in Virtual Court and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no dispute on the assessee’s otherwise eligibility to deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect of the project “Dynasty”. The AO disallowed the entire deduction on the ground that the assessee contravened the provisions of section 80IB(10)(f) by selling two units to one person. If there was violation of the relevant provision, only the deduction pertaining to such violation ought to have been disallowed. The ld. CIT(A), in our opinion, was fully justified in allowing the deduction on the amount claimed because the assessee had suo motu claimed deduction u/s.80IB(10) on reduced amount. The view taken by the ld. CIT(A) accords with the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in M/s. Kamat Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2020) 429 ITR 609 (Bom.) in which identical facts were involved and the Hon’ble High Court approved the granting of deduction on proportionate basis. We, therefore, accord our imprimatur to the view taken by the ld. CIT(A). ITA Nos. 261 to 264/PUN/2019 M/s. Sukhwani Chawla Erectors 4 A.Yrs. 2013-14 to 2015-16 : 5. Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of the other two appeals are mutatis mutandis similar to those of the assessment year 2012-13. Following the view taken hereinabove, we affirm the impugned order for these years as well. 6. In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27 th January, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT प ु णे Pune; दनांक Dated : 27 th January, 2022 Satish आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/ Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant; 2. यथ / The Respondent; 3. The CIT(A)-12, Pune 4. 5. The Pr.CIT(Central), Pune िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “B” / DR ‘B’, ITAT, Pune 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune ITA Nos. 261 to 264/PUN/2019 M/s. Sukhwani Chawla Erectors 5 Date 1. Draft dictated on 25-01-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 27-01-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *