ACIT, Trichy V. M/s. Vignesh Flat Housing Promoters, Srirangam

ITA 437/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2395 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR S MOHARANA
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 437/MDS/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE I, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. (APPELLANT) V. M/S VIGNESH FLAT HOUSING PROMOTERS, NO.100-C, GANDHI ROAD, SRIRANGAM 620 006. PAN : AACFV 5502 C (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : DR. S. MOHARANA, CIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 04.04.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.04.2013 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, DIRECTED AGA INST AN ORDER DATED 15.12.2010, ITS GRIEVANCE IS THAT THE CIT(APP EALS) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF VISVAS PROMOTERS (P) LTD. V. ITAT (323 ITR 114), WHILE ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF ` 3,58,91,270/- TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80-IB( 10) OF INCOME-TAX (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) WAS DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR A REASON I.T.A. NO. 437/MDS/11 2 THAT THE PROJECT VIGNESH PARADISE ON WHICH SUCH C LAIM WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, HAD CERTAIN UNITS WHICH HAD BUILT-UP AREA IN EXCESS OF 1500 SQ.FT. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD P LEADED FOR PROPORTIONAL DEDUCTION, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT I NCLINED TO GIVE IT. 3. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(APPEALS) WAS S UCCESSFUL. AS PER CIT(APPEALS), THE PROJECT INVOLVED THREE DIS TINCT PHASES. VIOLATION OF BUILT-UP AREA WAS WITH REGARD TO TWO I NDIVIDUAL HOUSES. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE DEDUCTION WAS AVAILABLE TO EA CH UNIT. HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT THE ASSESSE E DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) EXCEPT FOR THOSE UN ITS WHICH EXCEEDED 1500 SQ.FT. 4. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE US, LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE STOOD RESOLVED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT V. SANGHVI AND DOSHI ENTERPRISE [TC(A) NOS. 581 & 582 OF 2011 AND 314 & 315 OF 2012 & M.P. NO. 1 OF 2011 DATED 1.11.2 012]. 5. PER CONTRA, LEARNED A.R. FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE ISSUE OF PRO RATA DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) AS ON DATE STOOD DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO. 437/MDS/11 3 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE SUBMIS SIONS. ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS DENIED FOR A REASON THAT BUILT -UP AREA OF TWO UNITS EXCEEDED 1500 SQ.FT. CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED TH E CLAIM PRO RATA DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT THE ASSESSE E DEDUCTION EXCEPT FOR TWO UNITS WHICH EXCEEDED 1500 SQ.FT. HO N'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SANGHVI AND DOSHI ENTERPR ISE (SUPRA) HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION HAD TO BE ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10), WHERE BUILT-UP AREA OF SOME UNIT S EXCEEDED 1500 SQ.FT. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT CIT( APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN GIVING SUCH DIRECTION. NO INTERFERENC E IS REQUIRED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THURSDAY, THE 11 TH OF APRIL, 2013, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (V.DURGA RAO) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 11 TH APRIL, 2013. KRI. COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A), TIRUCHIRAPPAL LI/ CIT, CENTRAL-II, CHENNAI/D.R./GUARD FILE