Income-tax Officer, V. M/s. Townscape Associates, Pune

ITA 34/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7469 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Section: 80IB; 6; 10

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. 34/PN/2015 $' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2) PUNE ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. M/S TOWNSCAPE ASSOCIATES, 1132/3, VISHNU DARSHAN, F.C ROAD, PUNE PAN : AAAFT7435Q / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / DATE OF HEARING : 17-11-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-12-2016 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, PUNE DATED 30.09.20 14 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011. 2. THE DEPARTMENT HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL: 2 ITA NO. 34/PN/2015 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRE D IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB (10) OF TH E ACT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERR ED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE FIRST APPROVAL IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS GIVEN BY THE PMC ON 30.11.2000 AND THE SAID APPROV AL HAS TO BE RECKONED FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT, TO THE ASSESSEE, IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION TO THE SAID SECTION. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERR ED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE FIRST APPROVAL HAD BEEN GIVEN BEF ORE 01.04.2004, AND THUS THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION B Y 31.03.2008, WHICH IT FAILED TO DO AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT ELIGIB LE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERR ED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL FLOORS ON EXISTING BUILDINGS WOULD NOT RESULT IN A SEPARATE HOUSING PROJECT, AS THE GROUND AND STILT FLOOR IN RESPECT OF SIX WINGS HAD BEEN SANCTIONED PRIOR TO 01.04.2004 AND THE ADDITIONAL FLOOR SANCTIONED ON THE SAME WINGS WOULD BE P ART OF THE SAME EXISTING PROJECT AND AS SUCH THE ADDITIONAL FLOORS PERM ITTED TO BE CONSTRUCTED DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SEPARATE HOUSING PROJEC T. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAI LED TO APPRECIATE THAT, BY TREATING THE ADDITIONAL FLOORS CONST RUCTED IN THE BUILDING IN AN EXISTING PROJECT AS A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT PR OJECT U/S 80 IB (10) HAS NULLIFIED THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN E XPLANATION (I) OF THIS SUB- SECTION. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR DE LETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING HOU SING PROJECT. THE ASSESSEE DEVELOPED SIMPLE PARK HOUSING PROJECT AT HADAPSAR, PUNE AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF U/S 80 IB (10) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT ( IN SHORT THE ACT). THE HOUSING PROJECT SIMPLE PARK WAS FIRST APP ROVED BY THE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (PMC) ON 03.12.1997. THE APPROVA L WAS WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING A CONSISTING OF FOUR WINGS I.E A, B, C A ND D. THE 3 ITA NO. 34/PN/2015 BUILDING PLAN APPROVED IN RESPECT OF AFORESAID BUILDINGS WAS OF GROUND FLOOR PLUS THREE FLOORS. THE ASSESSEE AFTER COMPLETION OF FLATS IN BUILDING-A WINGS A,B,C AND D SOLD THE FLATS AND OFFERED THE PROFIT ARISING THERE FROM IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-2001. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE GOT A PPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING-B HAVING FOUR WINGS I.E E, F, G AND H AND BUILDING-C HAVING FIVE WINGS I.E. J, K, L, M & N ON 07.07.2000 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF GROUND FLOOR PLUS THREE FLOORS. SUBSEQUENTL Y, PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DISAPPROVED THE PLAN SANCTIONED DUE TO OBJECTION RAISED BY GLIDING CLUB, PUNE WHICH IS CLOSE TO THE HOUSING PR OJECT. THE BUILDING PLAN WAS REVISED. ACCORDING TO NEW BUILDING PLAN, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT ONLY 36 FLATS ON GROUND FLOOR PLU S STILT FLOOR. THE REVISED PLAN WAS SANCTIONED AND COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 30.11.2000. THE PROFIT FROM SALE OF FLATS IN BUILDING B AND C WERE OFFERED TO TAX BY ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-2004 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCT ION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT ON SAID FLATS. 4. THE ASSESSEE PURSUED THE MATTER WITH THE PUNE MUN ICIPAL CORPORATION FOR FURTHER CONSTRUCTION OF FLATS ON EXISTING BU ILDING. AFTER SEVERAL ROUNDS OF DELIBERATION WITH PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATIO N AND CIVIL AVIATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, PERMISSION WAS G RANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO CONSTRUCT GROUND PLUS THREE FLOORS WITH MAX IMUM HEIGHT OF THIRTEEN (13) METRE ON BUILDING HAVING DISTANCE OF THREE HUN DRED (300) METRES FROM COMPOUND WALL OF GLIDING CLUB. THUS, THE PERMISS ION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF GROUND PLUS THREE FLOORS ON SIX WINGS I.E E, F, G, H, M AND N WERE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 24.08.2004. THE ASSE SSEE REVISED THE BUILDING PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 1 ST , 2 ND AND 3 RD FLOOR ON ABOVE MENTIONED 4 ITA NO. 34/PN/2015 SIX BUILDINGS. COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 26.10.2005. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSE SSEE COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION OF ELEVEN (11) FLATS IN WING E OF BUILDING-B. COMPLE TION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF WING-E WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSE E ON 01.09.2009. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 93,80,730/- U/S 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL FLOORS CONSTRUCTED ON WING-E. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT COMMENCEMENT OF PROJECT CONSISTING OF WING-E OF BUILD ING B WAS PRIOR TO 01.04.2004 AND SINCE PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETE B EFORE THE DUE DATE I.E 31.03.2008, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DED UCTION U/S 80 IB (10). THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER REJECTED THE CONTEN TION OF ASSESSEE THAT THE FLATS CONSTRUCTED ON 1ST, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR OF W ING-E IS A SEPARATE HOUSING PROJECT. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 03.12.2012 , THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PARADISE CONSTRUC TION V/S ADDITIONAL CIT IN ITA NO. 233/PN/2011 AND ITA NO. 346/PN /2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-2008 & 2008-2009 RESPECTIVELY DECIDED ON 26.06.2013 AND CBDT CLARIFICATION DATED 04.05.2001 ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) HELD THAT THE ADDITIONAL FLATS CONSTRUCTED BY ASSESSEE ON EXISTING BUILDING IS A SEPARATE HOUSING PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTIO N 80IB (10) OF THE ACT. AGAINST THESE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5 ITA NO. 34/PN/2015 7. SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT SUBM ITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT CONSTRUCTION OF FLATS ON 1 ST , 2 ND AND 3 RD FLOOR OF WING-E, BUILDING B IS MERELY ADDITION OF FLOORS ON EXISTING BUILDING AND NOT A SEPARATE HOUSING PROJECT. THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS ORIGIN ALLY APPROVED PRIOR TO 01.04.2004, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAV E COMPLETED THE HOUSING PROJECT ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2008. THE ASSESSEE HA S COMPLETED THE PROJECT ON 01.09.2009, THEREFORE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80IB (10) ON THE ADDITIONAL FLOORS CONSTRU CTED. THE LEARNED D.R. SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80I B (10) AND PRAYED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK APPEARING ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) IN ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT BY TREATING THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL FLOORS ON EXISTING BUILDING AS SEPARATE HOUSING PROJECT. THE LEARNED A.R SUBMITTED THAT ORIGINALLY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT GROUND FLOOR PLUS STILT FLOOR. SUBS EQUENTLY, WHEN THE ASSESSEE PURSUED THE MATTER WITH PUNE MUNICIPAL COR PORATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL FLOORS, APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL FLOORS WAS GRANTED SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS. THE ASS ESSEE WAS GRANTED FRESH CERTIFICATE OF COMMENCEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTIO N OF ADDITIONAL FLOORS ON WING-E, F, G, H, M AND N ON 26.10.2005. SUBSEQUENT, APPROVAL GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO ADDITIONAL FLOORS ON EXISTING BUILDING ARE A SEPARATE HOUSING PROJECT. THE ASSESSEE WA S REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE SAME ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2011 FOR CLAIMING DEDU CTION U/S 80 6 ITA NO. 34/PN/2015 IB (10) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCT ION OF 1 ST , 2 ND AND 3 RD FLOOR OF WING-E OF BUILDING-B WELL BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME. COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 01.09 .2009 IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL FLOORS ADDED TO WING-E. 8.1. IN RESPECT OF ISSUE ; WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL FLOOR CONSTR UCTED ON THE EXISTING BUILDING IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS SEPARATE HOUSING P ROJECT. THE LEARNED A.R PLACED RELIANCE ON DECISIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PARADISE CONSTRUCTION V/S ADDITIONA L CIT (SUPRA) & THE CLARIFICATION GIVEN BY CBDT ON 04.05.2001 IN RE SPONSE TO LETTER DATED 01.01.2001 BY MAHARASHTRA CHAMBER OF HOUSING INDUS TRY. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE REPRESENTA TIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISIONS ON WHICH THE LEARNED A.R HAS PLAC ED RELIANCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS. IN SO FAR AS DATES OF COMMENC EMENT AND COMPLETION OF BUILDING IN A HOUSING PROJECT IS CONCERNED, TH ERE IS NO DISPUTE. THE ONLY ISSUE IS, WHETHER CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITION AL FLOORS ON EXISTING BUILDINGS IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS SEPARATE HOUSING PROJECT? 10. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF PARADISE CONSTRUCTION V/S ADDITIONAL CIT ( SUPRA). IN THE SAID CASE, THE PROJECT WAS INITIALLY APPROVED FOR 126 FLATS AND COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF SAID FLATS WAS RECEIVED ON 15.12.20 08 I.E WELL BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF COMPLETION I.E 31.03.2009. SUBSEQUENT LY, THE BUILDING PLAN WAS REVISED AND COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 10.06.2009 I.E MUCH AFTER THE LAST DATE OF COMPLETION OF 7 ITA NO. 34/PN/2015 ORIGINAL PROJECT. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATIO N CBDT CLARIFICATION DATED 04.05.2001 HELD THAT THE ADDITIONAL FLATS CO NSTRUCTED ON EXISTING HOUSING PROJECT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS UNDER: 10. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE FINAL COMPLETION/OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE FOR PROJECT WAS NOT ISSUED BY PMC AND AS PER BUILDING BY-LAWS ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO HANDOVER 15% OF THE AREA TO PMC FOR AMENITIES. IN FACT, ASSESSEES INITIAL PROJECT WAS F OR 126 FLATS FOR WHICH COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE ON 15.12.2008, I.E., BEFORE DUE DATE OF COMPLETION I.E., 31.03.2009. IN ACCOR DANCE WITH THE REVISED PLAN UP TO 25.05.2005, 126 FLATS COMPRISED 40 FLA TS EACH IN BUILDINGS A, B AND D AND 6 FLATS WERE RAISED IN BUILDIN G C. THUS, THE ASSESSEE GOT COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WITH REGARDS TO 1 26 FLATS BEFORE STIPULATED TIME PRESCRIBED U/S.80IB(10) I.E., 31.03.2009. SUB SEQUENT TO THIS, IN LIEU OF 15% OF AMENITIES AREA, I.E., 1200 SQ.MT RS., ADDITIONAL FSI AMOUNTING TO SALEABLE AREA OF 18,700 SQ.FT. WAS SANCTIO NED BY PMC VIDE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 10.06.2009 WHICH WAS S UBSEQUENT TO DATE OF 31.03.2009, WHICH WAS TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF THE P ROJECT HAVING 126 FLATS. THE ADDITIONAL FSI WAS UTILIZED BY CONSTRUC TING 30 ADDITIONAL FLATS IN BUILDING C. AS PER CLARIFICATION ISSUED ON BE HALF OF CBDT DATED 04.05.2001, THE ADDITIONAL HOUSING PROJECT ON EXISTING HO USING PROJECT SITE COULD QUALIFY AS INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY UNDER THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) PROVIDED IT IS UNDERTAKEN BY SEPARATE UNDERTA KING HAVING SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SO AS TO ENSURE THAT COR RECT PROFIT COULD BE ASCERTAINED FOR PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IB(10). DEDUCTI ON U/S. 80IB(10) IS GRANTED VIS-A-VIS PROJECT AND CORRECT PROFITS ARE AS C ERTAINABLE WITH REGARDS TO PROFITS FROM ADDITIONAL PROJECT. BUT HERE IN CASE BEFO RE US, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF ASSESSEE BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED DE DUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONAL FLATS RAISED IN BUILDING C AT THE STRENGTH OF ADDITIONAL FSI IN LIEU OF SURRENDER OF 15% OF AMEN ITIES AREA TO PMC. TAKING THE SPIRIT OF CLARIFICATION OF CBDT LETTER DA TED 04.05.2001, IT IS CLEAR THAT ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION AT THE STRENGTH OF TDR Q UALIFY FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN ITS OWN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. SAME RE ASONING APPLY FOR ADDITIONAL FSI RECEIVED IN LIEU OF SURRENDER OF 15% O F AMENITIES AREA BY THE 8 ITA NO. 34/PN/2015 ASSESSEE. SO THE CONSTRUCTION AT THE STRENGTH OF ADD ITIONAL FSI SHOULD BE TAKEN SEPARATE FOR PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB(10). HAVING SAID SO, IT IS CLEAR THAT CONSTRUCTION OF INITIAL 126 FLA TS AS MENTIONED ABOVE SHOULD NOT BE LINKED WITH ADDITIONAL 30 FLATS COMPLETED SU BSEQUENT TO 31.03.2009. HAD THE ASSESSEE BEEN ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTIO N U/S.80IB(10) EVEN SUBSEQUENT TO 31.03.2009, HIS CLAIM WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED FOR WITH REGARDS TO 30 FLATS AS WELL. BUT THERE IS NO CLAIM OF 30 FLATS WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10). BUT CLAIM OR NO CLAIM OF 30 FLAT S RAISED AT THE STRENGTH OF ADDITIONAL FSI WILL NOT DISTURB THE ENTITLEM ENT OF 126 FLATS RAISED ON BUILDINGS A (40 FLATS), B (40 FLATS) , C (6 FLATS) AND D (40 FLATS), WHICH WERE COMPLETED IN ALL RESPECTS ON 15.12.2008, I.E., BEFORE 3 1.03.2009. THE BENEFICIAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) SHOULD NOT BE DILUTED BY NARROW UNTENABLE INTERPRETATION BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. AC CORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/ S. 80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF 126 FLATS COMPLETED BEFORE 31-3-2009 AS DISCUSSED AB OVE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. SIMILAR I SSUE AROSE IN A.Y. 2008- 09. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING SAME REASONING, TH E CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB (10) IS DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED. 11. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF CBDT CLARIFICATION DATED 04.05.2 001 ON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED READS AS UNDER: THE UNDERSIGNED IS DIRECTED TO REFER TO YOUR LETTER NO. MCHI :RSA:M: 388/19799/3 DATED 1 ST JANUARY 2001 AND TO STATE THAT THE ADDITIONAL HOUSING PROJECT ON EXISTING HOUSING PROJECT SITE CAN QUALIFY AS INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY UNDER SECTION 10(23G) AND 80 IB (10) PROVIDED IT IS TAKEN UP BY A SEPARATE UNDERTAKING, HAVING SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS, SO AS TO ENSURE THAT CORRECT PROFITS CAN BE ASCERTAINED FOR THE PURPOS E OF SECTION 80IB AND ALSO TO IDENTIFY RECEIPTS AND REPAYMENTS OF LONG TERM FINANCES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10 (23G), SEPARATELY FINANCING AR RANGEMENTS AND ALSO, IF IT SEPARATELY FULFILLS ALL OTHER STATUTORY CONDITIONS LISTED IN SECTIONS 10(23G) AND 80IB (10). WITH REGARD TO YOUR QUERY REGAR DING THE DEFINITION OF HOUSING PROJECT, IT IS CLARIFIED THAT ANY PROJECT WHIC H HAS BEEN APPROVED BY A LOCAL AUTHORITY AS A HOUSING PROJECT SHOULD BE CONSID ERED ADEQUATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 10 (23 G) AND 80IB (10). THUS, FROM PERUSAL OF CBDT COMMUNICATION, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT ADDITIONAL HOUSING PROJECT ON EXISTING HOUSING PROJECT SITE QUALIFY FOR 9 ITA NO. 34/PN/2015 DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CO NDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO MAINTENCE OF SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED SE PARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL FLATS CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON EXISTING BUILDING. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE DECISIO N OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT. THUS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS UPHELD AND T HE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 06 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) '/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $% '/ JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; & / DATED : 06TH DECEMBER, 2016 SB * +$-' .' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (A)-II, PUNE 4. THE CIT-II, PUNE 5. ! %%* , * , - , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. / / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, % * / PRIVATE SECRETARY, * , / ITAT,