ITO 24(3)(2), MUMBAI V. NEETA ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

ITA 6002/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2718 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N P SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.6002/M/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 2012 ) ITO - 24(3)(2), R.NO.704, C - 11, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 400 061. / VS. M/S. NEETA ENTERPRISES, 141, GUNDECHA HOUSE, JAWAHAR NAGAR, GOREGAON (W), MUMBAI 400062. ./ PAN : AACFN4947M ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIMAL PUNMIYA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.P. SINGH, CIT - DR / DATE OF HEARING : 21.09.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 .09.2016 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 26.9.2014 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 34, MUMBAI DATED 17.7.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 2012. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WAS OBTAINED ON 28.11.1992, IE MUCH BEFORE 1.10.1998, TH E DATE ON OR AFTER WHICH THE PROJECT APPROVED WERE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IGNORING THE FACT THAT IT HAS NOT OBTAINED COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE 31.3.2008 WHICH IS MANDATORY AS PER EXPLANATION (II) TO SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 2. BEFORE US, IN CONNECTION WITH GROUND NO.1 , LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TH E ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE HOUSING PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. STATING THAT THIS ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2898/M/2010 (2006 - 07) AND OTHERS, DATED 4.6.2014. HE READ OUT THE RELEVANT PARAS 18 AND 19 OF THE SAID TRIBUNALS ORDER. 2 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE CITED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA), WE FIND, THE FOLLOWING LINES ARE RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF GROUND NO.1 AND THE SAME READ AS UNDER: - 19. ............ THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD CIT (A) THAT THE AO WAS WRONG IN HOLDING THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE HAD COMMENCED BEFORE 1.10.1998. WE UPHOLD HIS ORDER. SINCE, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ALL THE THREE CASES ARE IDENTICAL, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 4. THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IF READ ALONG WITH THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) IN HIS ORDER VIDE THE CONTENTS OF PARA 2.4 ON PAGE 14, THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE CIT (A) IS FAIR A ND REASONABLE AND THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN GROUND NO.1 IS REQUIRED TO BE DISMISSED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THUS, GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 5. REGARDING GROUND NO.2 R E L A T I N G T O T H E D A T E O F C O M P L E T I O N O F T H E P R O J E C T , ALSO IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE THAT THE SAME STANDS COVERED AND THE CIT (A)S DECISION GIVEN IN PARA 3.4 OF HIS ORDER AT PAGE 32 IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. IT IS THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) THAT THE PROJECT IN QUESTION WAS APPROVED PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT AND THEREFORE, THE PROVISION S RELATING TO THE DUE DATE FIXED IN THE STATUTE ARE INAPPLICABLE. HOWEVER, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SAME, IT IS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT CONSISTS OF SEVEN BUILDINGS (A TO G) AND THE BUILDINGS A, B AND C WER E COMPLETED ON 18.2.2006; BUILDINGS D, E AND F WERE COMPLETED ON 3.2.2007 AND FINALLY , T H E BUILDING G WAS COMPLETED ON 29.3.2008 IE ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF 31.3.2008. IN THIS REGARD, HE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPIES OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE S ENCLOSED TO THE NOTE PROVIDED BY THE LD AR DATED 7.9. 2016. 6. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FACTS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US AND AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND, THE DECISION GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) VIDE PARA 3.4 OF HIS ORDER IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 3 R D SEPTEMBER, 2016. S D / - S D / - ( RAVISH SOOD ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 23 .09.2016 3 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI