Deputy ssistant Commissioner of Income-tax, V. Shri Krishna Haribhau Lohokare, Pune

ITA 56/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7203 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Assessee Lawyers: KRISHNA GUJRATHI
• Keywords: Competent authority

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E , ! ' # , $% &' #' , ' # '( BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWAS THY, JM '%. / ITA NOS. 56, 57 & 58/PUN/2015 * +* / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE ....... / APPELLANT /VS. SHRI KRISHNA HARIBHAU LOHOKARE, 19, UNITED APARTMENTS, EAST STREET, PUNE 411001 PAN : AAFPL4889D / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KRISHNA GUJRATHI REVENUE BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / DATE OF HEARING : 24-01-2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-01-2017 , / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THESE THREE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAIN ST THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, PUNE. ITA NO. 56/PUN/2015 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 28-10-2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. IN ITA NOS. 57 & 58/PUN/2015 THE REVENUE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 28-10-2014, COM MON FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12. 2 ITA NOS. 56, 57 & 58/PUN/2015 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORD S ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS PROPRIETOR OF M/S. HARIKRIPA BUILDERS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND C ONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECTS. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASS ESSMENT YEARS WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AC T) IN RESPECT OF ITS HOUSING PROJECT MAHAGANESH NAGARI SITUATED AT KES AVNAGAR, MUNDHWA, PUNE. THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/ S. 80IB(10) IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS IS AS UNDER : ASSESSMENT YEAR DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 80IB(10) 2008 - 09 ` 68,13, 878/ - 2010 - 11 ` 85,83,327/ - 2011 - 12 ` 1,47,39,268/ - THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) ON THE GROUND THAT : I. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLETED THE ENTIRE PROJECT BEFO RE STIPULATED DATE I.E. 31 ST MARCH, 2008, AND II. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THE COMPETENT LOCAL AUTHORITY. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSE E CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 937/PN/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 D ECIDED ON 28-02-2013 ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 2010-11 AND 2011-12. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ASSAILING THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 3 ITA NOS. 56, 57 & 58/PUN/2015 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ARE AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM U /S. 80IB(10) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FUL FILLED CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN PARA (I) OF SUB-CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 80IB( 10) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10). 2. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED ON THIS ISSUE. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, SUBSTITU TE OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS URGED HEREIN ABOVE AS AND WHEN FOUND NECESS ARY. IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN A PPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12 AGAINST THE ORD ER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4. SHRI KRISHNA GUJRATHI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED AT THE OUTSET THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD M ADE DISALLOWANCE FOR SIMILAR REASONS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6-07. THE LD. AR POINTED THAT THIS FACT HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 5.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28-02-2014 FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND PARA 4.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DAT ED 22-03-2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS HAVE B EEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 5.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R DATED 14-02- 2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 937/PN/2 010 (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUC TION U/S. 80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF ITS HOUSING PROJECT MAHAGANESH NA GARI SITUATED AT KESAVNAGAR, MUNDHWA, PUNE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2009-10. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA N O. 1733/PN/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 DECIDED ON 0 9-09-2014 BY 4 ITA NOS. 56, 57 & 58/PUN/2015 PLACING RELIANCE ON ITS EARLIER ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 REJECTED THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. THE LD. AR PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 937/PN/2010 (SUP RA) AND ITA NO. 1733/PN/2013 (SUPRA). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO ALLOW ABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF HOUSING PROJECT MAHAGANESH NAGARI SITUATED AT KESAVNAGAR, MUNDHWA, PU NE DEVELOPED BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YE ARS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 937/PN/2010 ( SUPRA) AND ITA NO. 1733/PN/2013 (SUPRA). THE DEPARTMENT HAS ASSAILED THE ORD ER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN ALLOWING ASSESSEE S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON THE PREMISE THAT TH E CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S. 80IB(10)(A)(I) ARE NOT COMPLIED WITH. THE ASSESSE E HAS DEVELOPED HOUSING PROJECT MAHAGANESH NAGARI SITUATED AT KESAVNAGAR, MUNDHWA, PUNE. THE SAID HOUSING PROJECT WAS DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TWO PHASES. THE INITIAL BUILDING PLAN WAS SANCTIONED B Y THE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (PMC) ON 31-03-2011. THE FIRST PHASE OF THE PROJECT APPROVED WAS WITH RESPECT TO FIVE BUILDINGS I.E . A, B, C, D, AND E. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON 25-01-2007 THE BUILDING PLAN WAS APPROVED FOR SECOND PHASE CONSISTING OF BUILDINGS F, G AND H, 10 ROW HOUSES AND AMENITIES SPACE. THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED COMPLETION CERTIFIC ATE IN RESPECT OF 80 FLATS IN BUILDINGS A, B, C, D AND E AND 48 FLATS IN BUILDINGS F, G AND H FROM THE GRAM PANCHAYAT KESHAVNAGAR , 5 ITA NOS. 56, 57 & 58/PUN/2015 MUNDHWA ON 28-02-2008. THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DISALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) IS THAT THE ENTIRE PROJEC T IS NOT COMPLETE BY 31-03-2008. THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD SHOW THAT THE FIRST PHASE OF THE PROJECT CONSISTING OF BUILDINGS A, B, C, D AND E WAS APPROVED ON 31-01-2001. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10)(1 )(A) PROJECT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETE ON OR BEFORE 31-03-2 008. WHEREAS, THE APPROVAL OF SECOND PHASE OF THE PROJECT CONSISTING O F BUILDINGS F, G AND H + 10 ROW HOUSES + AMENITIES SPACE WAS OBTAINED O N 25-01-2007. THEREFORE, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10)(A) THE SECOND PHASE OF THE HOUSING PROJECT IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION IF THE PR OJECT IS COMPLETE ON OR BEFORE 31-03-2012. AS HAS BEEN POINTED EARLIER THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT O F 80 FLATS IN BUILDINGS A, B, C, D, AND E AND 48 FLATS IN RESPECT OF BUILDINGS F, G AND H ON 28-02-2008. THIS ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 937/PN/2010 (SUPRA). THE TRIBUNAL HELD : 13. THE NEXT OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE PROJECT IS NOT COMPLETE ON 31.03.2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSER VED THAT ON VISIT TO THE PROJECT SITE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN D ECEMBER, 2008, THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS B-1 TO B-10 AND AMENITY B UILDING AND SHOP WAS NOT STARTED WHICH PROVED THAT THE PROJECT IS NOT CO MPLETE. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN ABL E TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT BUILDING PLAN APPROVED BY THE PMC ON 31.0 3.2001 CONSISTING OF FIVE BUILDINGS AS STATED ABOVE AND SUBSEQUENT BUILD ING PLAN APPROVED BY THE CONCERNED COLLECTOR ON 25.01.2007 CONSISTING OF 3 BUILDINGS & ROW HOUSES ALONGWITH AMENITY SPACE WAS BASICALLY OTHER T HAN FIRST FIVE BUILDINGS, WHOSE APPROVAL WAS TAKEN ON 31.03.2001. IT IS MORE CLEAR FROM THE FACT THAT SAID APPROVAL DATED 25.01.2007 A CKNOWLEDGES THE EXISTENCE OF FIVE BUILDINGS. IT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT APPROVAL DATED 25.01.2007 WITH REGARDS TO PROPOSED 3 BUILDINGS, 10 ROW HOUSES AND AMENITY SPACE ACKNOWLEDGE EXISTENCE OF FIVE BUILDIN GS. THE PROFIT ON SALE OF SOME FLATS OUT OF IT IS SUBJECT MATTER BEFORE US . THESE BUILDINGS A, B, C, D & E WERE ALREADY EXISTING AT THE STRENGTH OF APPR OVAL DATED 31.03.2001. THIS IS THE REASON THAT SECOND APPROVAL WITH REGARD TO F, G & H, 10 ROW HOUSES AND AMENITY SPACE WAS OBTAINED O N 25.01.2007. IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF IT ACKNOWLEDGED/REF ER EXISTENCE OF 6 ITA NOS. 56, 57 & 58/PUN/2015 EARLIER FIVE BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED. THIS SECOND APP ROVAL ACKNOWLEDGES THE EXISTENCE OF FIRST FIVE BUILDINGS. HON'BLE BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VANDANA PROPERTIES IN ITA.NO.3633 O F 2009 (BOM) HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'THE EXPRESSION 'HOUSING PROJECT' IS NEITHER DEFINE D UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE ACT NOR UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. EVEN UND ER THE MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1988 AS ALSO UNDER THE D EVELOPMENT CONTROL REGULATIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI, 1991, THE EXPRESSIO N 'HOUSING PROJECT' IS NOT DEFINED. THEREFORE, THE EXPRESSION 'HOUSING PR OJECT' IN SECTION 80IB(10) WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED AS COMMONLY UND ERSTOOD. AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY MR. INAMDAR, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND MR. MISTRI, LEARNED S ENIOR ADVOCATE AND MR. JOSHI, LEARNED ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE INTERVENORS, THE EXPRESSION 'HOUSING PROJECT' IN COMMON PARLANCE WOU LD MEAN CONSTRUCTING A BUILDING OR GROUP OF BUILDINGS CONSI STING OF SEVERAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS. IN FACT, THE EXPLANATION IN SECT ION 80IB(10) SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE APPROVAL GR ANTED TO A BUILDING PLAN CONSTITUTES APPROVAL GRANTED TO A HOUSING PROJ ECT. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT CONSTRUCTION OF EVEN ONE BUILDING WITH S EVERAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS OF THE SIZE NOT EXCEEDING 1000 SQUARE FEET ('E' BUI LDING IN THE PRESENT CASE) WOULD CONSTITUTE A 'HOUSING PROJECT' UNDER SE CTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT.' 14. IN THIS BACKGROUND WE FIND THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT LAY OUT CAN HAVE NUMBER OF HOUSING PROJECTS AND THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING PLAN APPROVED ON 25.01.2007 BY TH E COLLECTOR, PUNE, WAS INDEPENDENT AND WAS NOT THE EXTENSION OF THE BU ILDING PLAN APPROVED ON 31.03.2001 BY PMC WITH REGARDS TO FIVE EARLIER BUILDINGS. WE FIND THAT ITAT PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAHUL C ONSTRUCTION CO. VS. ITO IN ITA.NO.1250/PN/2009 AND 707/PN/2010 HELD OBS ERVED THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LAYOUT PLAN AND B UILDING PLAN. IT WAS HELD THAT APPROVAL OF HOUSING PROJECT AND APPROVAL OF BUILDING PLAN ARE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. THUS IT WAS HELD THAT WHATE VER PORTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT IS OTHERWISE FOUND TO BE ELIGIBLE, HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A HOUSING PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEDUCTION U/S .80IB(10). THE NEXT OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY I.E., COLLECTOR, PUNE, THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY WHO HAS SANCTIONED THE REVISED LAY OUT AND BUILDING PLAN OF THE PROJECT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, KESHAVNAGAR GRAMPANCHAYAT MUNDHWA WAS NOT LOCAL AUTHORITY COMPE TENT TO ISSUE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS OBTAINED COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF 80 FLATS INCLU DED IN BUILDINGS A, B, C, D & E AND 48 FLATS INCLUDED IN BUILDINGS F, G & H F ROM GRAMPANCHAYAT KESHAVNAGAR, MUNDHWA, AS MENTIONED ABOVE VIDE ORDER DATED 7 ITA NOS. 56, 57 & 58/PUN/2015 28.02.2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPRECIAT E THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO PROCEDURE FOR ISSUING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE BY COLLECTOR, PUNE, IN RESPECT OF ANY BUILDING PLAN APPROVED BY HIM. THE A SSESSEE AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION MADE ENQUIRY UNDER R IGHT TO INFORMATION ACT AS TO THE NUMBER OF APPROVALS GRANTED BY THE CO LLECTOR WITHIN THE LIMITS OF VILLAGE MUNDHWA, KESHAVNAGAR. THE OFFICE O F THE COLLECTOR VIDE LETTER DATED 14.01.2010 COMMUNICATED THAT NO COMPLE TION CERTIFICATE WAS GRANTED TO ANY PROJECT APPROVED BEFORE 31.12.2007, AS MENTIONED ABOVE. SIMILARLY, DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING S, THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT(A) THAT CLARIFICAT ION WAS ISSUED BY THE TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY THAT IN RESPECT OF AREA FAL LING OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF PMC, THE PROCEDURE IS TO OBTAIN COM PLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND IT WAS ALSO POINTED OU T THAT GRAMPANCHAYAT WAGHOLI WAS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR THIS PURPOSE. I N THIS REGARD, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THERE WAS NO PR OCEDURE TO ISSUE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE BY TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN RESPECT OF CONSTRUCTION BEYOND THE PMC LIMITS. SECTION 80IB(10) DOES NOT DEFINE A LOCAL AUTHORITY AND IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT COMPLE TION CERTIFICATE SHOULD BE GRANTED BY THE SAME AUTHORITY WHICH HAS APPROVED THE BUILDING PLAN OR ISSUED THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE. MOREOVER, I T WAS NOT POSSIBLE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE LAND IN QUESTION WAS EXCLUDED FRO M PMC LIMIT AT RELEVANT POINT OF TIME AS STATED ABOVE. SO THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ISSUING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM PMC AT RELEVANT POINT O F TIME AFTER EXCLUSION OF SAME FROM PMC LIMITS AS STATED ABOVE. IN SUCH CIRCUM STANCES THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT GRAMPANCHAYAT KESHAVNAGAR IS NOT A LOCAL AUTHORITY. THE EXPRESSIO N LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS NEITHER BEEN DEFINED U/S.2 NOR U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE EXPRESSION LOCAL AUTHORITY IS DEFINED IN EXPLANATIO N 2 TO SECTION 10(20) OF THE ACT AS UNDER: EXPLANATION - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, EXPR ESSION 'LOCAL AUTHORITY' MEANS (I) PANCHAYAT AS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (D) OF ARTI CLE 243 OF THE CONSTITUTION OR (II) MUNICIPALITY AS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (E) OF T HE ARTICLE 243P OF THE CONSTITUTION OR (III) MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE OR DISTRICT BOARD, LEGALL Y ENTITLED TO OR ENTRUSTED BY THE GOVERNMENT WITH THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT O F MUNICIPAL OR LOCAL FUND (IV) CANTONMENT BOARD AS DEFINED IN SECTION 3 OF TH E CANTONMENT BOARD ACT 1924 8 ITA NOS. 56, 57 & 58/PUN/2015 15. IN VIEW OF ABOVE WE HOLD THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD N OT SUFFER FOR ANY ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE WITH REGARD TO APPLICABILITY OF BUILDING BYE LAWS IN PARTICULAR AREA. THE PROBLEM AROSE WITH REGARD TO C OMPLETION CERTIFICATE BY PMC BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT AREA OF THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS EXCLUDED FROM PMC LIMITS AT RELEVANT POINT OF TIME AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. IN SUCH PECULIAR CONDITIONS, THE BENEFIT BESTOWED ON A SSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DENIED FOR NO FAULT OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH LIBERAL I NTERPRETATION SHOULD BE USED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE WHEN HE IS INCAPACITATED IN COMPLYING CERTAIN PROVISIONS FOR THE REASONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL. IN C ASE BEFORE US, PROBLEM AROSE DUE TO THE CHANGE OF JURISDICTION WITH REGARD TO CONFUSION OF APPLICABILITY OF BUILDING BYE LAWS BECAUSE OF CHANG E OF JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF EXCLUSION OF LAND IN QUESTION FROM PMC LI MITS. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT SUFFER FOR THE SAME. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMST ANCES, LIBERAL INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE USED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT LAW ALWAYS GIVES REMEDY AND LAW DOES WRONG TO NO ONE. WE ARE AWARE THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) SU GGEST ABOUT ONLY COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION AND NO ADJECTIVE SHOULD BE USED ALONGWITH WORD COMPLETION. THIS STRICT INTERPRETATION SHOUL D BE GIVEN IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES BUT FACTS BEFORE US ARE PECULIAR BECA USE OF CHANGE OF JURISDICTION OF LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLICABILI TY OF BUILDING BYE LAWS. ASSESSEE WAS INCAPACITATED TO OBTAIN COMPLETION CER TIFICATE FROM PMC BECAUSE OF EXCLUSION OF LAND IN QUESTION FROM PMC L IMITS WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT SU FFER FOR THE SAME. MOREOVER, CONCERNED GRAM PANCHAYAT WHO ISSUE COMPLE TION CERTIFICATE WITHIN STIPULATED TIME IS ENTITLED FOR ISSUING COMP LETION CERTIFICATE AS STATED ABOVE AFTER EXCLUSION OF THE LAND IN QUESTIO N FROM PMC LIMITS. THE TAXING STATUTE GRANTING INCENTIVES FOR PROMOTION OF GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY AND THAT PROVISIONS FOR PROMOTING ECONOMIC GROWTH HAS TO BE INTERPRETED LIB ERALLY. AT THE SAME TIME, RESTRICTION THEREON HAS TO BE CONSTRUED STRIC TLY SO AS TO ADVANCE THE OBJECT OF PROVISION AND NOT TO FRUSTRATE THE SAME. THE PROVISIONS OF TAXING STATUTE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED HARMONIOUSLY WITH THE O BJECT OF THE STATUTE TO EFFECTUATE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION. THIS VIEW IS F ORTIFIED BY DECISION OF PUNE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAMSUKH PROPERTIES (SU PRA), RAHUL CONSTRUCTION CO. (SUPRA) AND OTHERS. 7. THE LD. AR HAS FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT SET OF APPEALS IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ALREADY ADJUDICATED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE ALSO ADMITTED THE FACT T HAT THE FACTS 9 ITA NOS. 56, 57 & 58/PUN/2015 IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 08-09, 2010- 11 AND 2011-12 ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE FINANCIAL YE AR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. SINCE, THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ACCO RDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE UPHELD AND ALL THE APPEALS OF THE DEP ARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 25 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) ( ! / VIKAS AWASTHY) ' ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' / PUNE; $% / DATED : 25 TH JANUARY, 2017 RK , - ./& 0&+ / 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. +01 23 / GUARD FILE. // // TRUE COPY// &'4 / BY ORDER, 5 %6 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, & ,- , ' / ITAT, PUNE