M/s. Ujjwal Construction, Pune V. ITO,Wd.-1(3), Pune

ITA 607/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8441 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S NAIK
• Assessee Lawyers: SRINIVASAN
• Section: 143(3); 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.607/PN/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) M/S. UJJWAL CONSTRUCTION RAJYOG APARTMENTS, S.NO.70, VADGAON BUDRUK, PUNE 411051 PAN: AABFU3163B . APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), PUNE. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SRINIVASAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.S. NAIK DATE OF HEARING : 28-10-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-10-2014 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, PUNE DATED 22.10.2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE HON. CIT ERRED IN HOLDING ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTIT LED TO CLAIM RELIEF UNDER SECTION 80 IB(10)EVEN THOUGH ASSES SEE SATISFIES ALL THE REQUIREMENT FOR GRANT OF RELIEF. 2. IT MAY BE HELD CIT(A) AND A.O.'S ORDERS ARE BAD IN L AW AS THEY HAVE FAILED TO INTERPRET PROVISIONS OF SEC.80 IB (10) CORRECTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND DECIDED CASES. 3. ORDERS PASSED BY A.O. AND CIT (A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THEY BE DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE RETURN OF INCOME CLA IMING RELIEF UNDER SEC 80IB(10). ITA NO.607/PN/2011 M/S. UJJWAL CONSTRUCTION 2 4. THE APPELLANT PLEADS FOR DIRECTIONS ALLOWING HIS APP EAL AND CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY OR WITHDRA W ANY OR ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD UNDERTAKEN A PROJECT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL PREM ISES VIZ. UJJWAL GARDENS AT VADGAON SHERI, PUNE AHMEDNAGAR ROAD, PUNE. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF T HE ACT ON THE PROFITS ARISING FROM THE SAID PROJECT. DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUISITIONED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF THE PROJ ECT. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF THE SANCTIONED PLAN AND T HE ARCHITECT CERTIFICATE REGARDING COMPLETION OF WINGS A, B, C AND D OF BU ILDING UJJWAL GARDEN. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SE CTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WAS NOT RECEIVED TILL 31.03.20 08. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE PROJECT OF THE A SSESSEE FULFILLS ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ALTH OUGH NO COMPLETION CERTIFICATE HAD BEEN RECEIVED. HOWEVER, THE BUILD ING HAD BEEN OCCUPIED AND WAS BEING USED BY THE SAID OCCUPIERS, WHICH ESTABLISHED THAT THE PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPLE TED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER MADE A REFERENCE T O THE CERTIFICATE OF ARCHITECT, WHICH IN TURN PROVED THAT THE PRO JECT WAS COMPLETED. WITH REGARD TO THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THOUGH THE APPLICATION HAD BE EN SUBMITTED, ITA NO.607/PN/2011 M/S. UJJWAL CONSTRUCTION 3 BUT THE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HAD NOT ISSUED THE CO MPLETION CERTIFICATE, AGAINST WHICH THE APPLICATION HAD BEEN MADE TO THE APPROPRIATE COURT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE S PROJECT WAS APPROVED ON 13.11.2001 AND 12.03.2003 BY THE PUNE MUNICIP AL CORPORATION AND THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED WIT HIN FOUR YEARS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT . AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FURNISHED THE PROJECT COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THE AUTHORITY, WHO HAD APPROVED THE PROJECT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE FROM THE PU NE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD FAILED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME LIMIT LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT I.E. BEFORE 31.03.2008 AND CON SEQUENTLY, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED AT RS.7,79,060/- WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSE E. 5. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBS ERVING AS UNDER: 3.3.4. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CLAIMING THAT THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE AND THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAME WAS NOT COMPLET E BEFORE THE DUE DATE I.E 31.3.2008. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT SUBMISS ION OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY IS A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR THE GRANT OF THE DEDUCTION. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED BY TREATING T HE PROJECT AS COMPLETE ON THE BASIS OF OTHER DOCUMENTS AND OTHE R FACTS, MAY BE IN THE NAME OF LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BENEF ICIAL PROVISION, BUT THE SAME HAS ALSO TO BE ESTABLISHED WITHOUT PREJ UDICE TO THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW. IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE DOCU MENTS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT IS INCORRECT IN CLAIMING T HE PROJECT TO BE COMPLETE. ONLY BECAUSE CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS OF THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES HAVE CERTIFIED THAT THE RELEVANT ASPECT O F THE PROJECT HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND ALSO MAY BE THE FLAT OWNERS HAV E STARTED LIVING IN THE PREMISE, BUT FROM THAT IT CANNOT BE SAI D THAT THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE UNLESS IT COULD BE SHOWN THAT THE PROJECT WAS REALLY COMPLETE AS REQUIRED IN LAW AND THE ISSUANCE O F CERTIFICATE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, THOUGH A MANDATORY REQUIREME NT COULD NOT BE OBTAINED OR ISSUED FOR REASONS NOT ATTRIBUTA BLE TO THE APPELLANT AND FOR ALL OTHER ASPECTS OTHERWISE THE PROJ ECT IS REALLY ITA NO.607/PN/2011 M/S. UJJWAL CONSTRUCTION 4 COMPLETE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LITIGATION RELATES TO A CASE WHEREIN THE APPELLANT IS A PLAINTI FF AND PUNE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY IS THE DEFENDANT, IT IS ALSO SEEN F ROM THE PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF THAT THE PROJEC T WAS STOPPED FROM BEING CONSTRUCTED W.E.F. DIFFERENT DATES WHICH ARE RELEVANT FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND THEREAFTER, THE RELEVANT PORTION IS QUOTED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE : 2. 3.. 4.. 5.. 6.. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PRO JECT WAS STOPPED FROM TIME TO TIME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLAN T THAT THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UPHELD AND THE GROUND APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND POINTED OUT THAT THE PROJECT WAS FIRST SANCTIONED BY THE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN JANUARY, 2001 AND SUBSEQUEN TLY IN MARCH, 2003 AND JULY, 2004. THE ASSESSEE HAD FOR THE FIR ST TIME, CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN AS SESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND SUBSEQUENTLY, IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 05-06, 2006- 07 AND 2007-08. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005- 06 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. HOWEVER, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WAS FOR THE FIRST TIME R EJECTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HAD NOT BEEN RE CEIVED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. THE PLEA RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE WAS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD COMPLIED WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 80IB (10) OF ITA NO.607/PN/2011 M/S. UJJWAL CONSTRUCTION 5 THE ACT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND IN THE ABSENC E OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE, THERE WAS NO MERIT FOR DENIAL OF THE SAME IN TH E YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS NO DENIAL OF THE FACT THAT THE PROJECT HAD BEEN COMPLETED AS THE BUILDING WAS FULLY OCCUPIED AND CORPORATION TAX NOTICE HAD BEEN ISSUED TO THE OWNERS. FURTHER, ALL THE ANCILLARY CERTIFICATES FROM VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS HAD BEEN RE CEIVED AND EVEN THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THE ARCHITECT WAS REC EIVED. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE EXPL AINED THE REASONS AS TO WHY THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THE PU NE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WAS STILL PENDING. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO TH E CIVIL SUIT FILED IN THE CASE AND OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE COP IES OF THE SUIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ORDER PRONOUNCED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE, UNDER WHICH, IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED THAT THE BUILDING UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT PART OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE P ARTIES. ANOTHER ASPECT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WAS ISSUING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE TO INDIVIDUAL FLAT OWNERS AND NO CERTIFICATE HAD BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVE NUE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COMPLETION CERTIFICA TE AND ALSO BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE ANY APPLICATION FOR T HE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO TH E CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. IN RESPECT OF LETTERS RECEIVED FROM THE ANCILLARY DEPARTMENT, THE LEARNED DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE SA ME WERE ONLY ITA NO.607/PN/2011 M/S. UJJWAL CONSTRUCTION 6 RECOMMENDATIONS AND RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO T HE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE ASSES SEE HAD UNDERTAKEN THE PROJECT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL PR EMISES AT VADGAON SHERI, PUNE AHMEDNAGAR ROAD, PUNE UNDER THE NA ME AND STYLE OF UJJWAL GARDENS. THE BUILDING PLANS FOR THE SAID PRO JECT WERE FIRST SANCTIONED BY THE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN JANUA RY, 2001 AND SUBSEQUENTLY IN MARCH, 2003 AND JULY, 2004. THE AS SESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AND THEREOF A.YS. 2005-06 AND 2007-0 8. THE ASSESSMENTS RELATING TO A.YS. 2004-05 AND 2005-06 WERE COMPLETED BY PASSING ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A CCEPTED VIS-- VIS THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER , DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TAKEN UP FOR THE YEA R UNDER APPEAL I.E. A.Y. 2006-07, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUISITIONED TH E ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THE PU NE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. THE SAID COMPLETION CERTIFICATE AS PER THE AS SESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY 31.03.208. THE CONTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY WAS THAT THE PROJECT HAD BEEN COMP LETED AND THE BUILDING HAD BEEN OCCUPIED AND WAS BEING USED BY THE OC CUPIES WHICH ESTABLISHED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD. THOUGH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICA TE WAS NOT RECEIVED FROM THE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. HOWEVE R, THE ARCHITECTS CERTIFICATE ALONG WITH THE ANCILLARY CERTIFICATES R ECEIVED FROM ITA NO.607/PN/2011 M/S. UJJWAL CONSTRUCTION 7 THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). BUT THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE FROM THE PUNE MUNIC IPAL CORPORATION OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLET E THE PROJECT WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT I.E. BEFORE 31.03.2008 AND THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT AT RS.7,79,060/- WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS UP HELD BY THE CIT(A). 9. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS T HAT THE PROJECT HAD BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN TIME LIMIT I.E. 31.03.2008 AS WAS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT ALL THE ANCILLARY CERTIFICATES FROM THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS HAD BEEN RECEIVED, COPIES OF WHICH ARE AVAILAB LE AT PAGES 20 TO 24 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE W AS ALSO RECEIVED FROM ARCHITECT WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN ADDITION, THE CORPORATION TAX NOTICE HAD BEEN ISSUED T O THE OWNERS WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 37 TO 41 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ALL THE ABOVE SAID EVIDENCES ESTABLISHED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE B UILDING IS COMPLETED AND IS FULLY OCCUPIED. IN RESPECT OF THE COMPLET ION CERTIFICATE TO BE ISSUED BY THE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BY THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THA T NO SUCH CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN ISSUED TILL DATE. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN OCTOBER, 2005, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ISSUED AN ORDER ASKING NOT ONLY THE ASSESS EE FIRM BUT ALSO ALL ITS PARTNERS, SISTER CONCERNS AND OTHERS TO STOP WOR K AT ALL THEIR SITES FALLING WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATIO N. THE SAID ORDER WAS ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF A COMPLAINT FILED BY ONE SHRI VASANT MAHADEV DESHPANDE, WHO WAS THE LAND OWNER OF AN OTHER SITE. ITA NO.607/PN/2011 M/S. UJJWAL CONSTRUCTION 8 AGAINST THE SAID, THE ASSESSEE FILED A SUIT WITH THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, PUNE ON 21.06.2006 AGAINST THE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND THE RELIEF CLAIMED IN THE SAID SUIT WAS THAT IF THE WORK HAD TO BE STOPPED ON THE COMPLAINT OF SHRI VA SANT MAHADEV DESHPANDE THEN IT SHOULD BE RELATED TO THE SITE OF SHRI VASANT MAHADEV DESHPANDE ONLY AND WORK AT ALL THE OT HER SITES SHOULD NOT BE STOPPED. THE CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, PUN E VIDE ORDER DATED 01.07.2006 LIFTED THE RESTRAIN ORDER PASSED B Y THE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES, WHICH DID NOT RELATE TO THE COMPLAINANT, SHRI VASANT MAHADEV DESHPANDE . THE COPY OF THE CIVIL SUIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PLACED AT PAGES 28 TO 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE HAND-WRITTEN ORDER OF THE CIVIL JUDGE IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 32 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSE E IS THAT CONSEQUENT TO THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR D IVISION, PUNE THE CONSTRUCTION OF ALL THE SITES EXCEPT THE SITE CONNECT ED WITH SHRI VASANT MAHADEV DESHPANDE WERE STARTED AND WAS LATER COMPLETED. HOWEVER, THE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DID NOT ISSUE THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES CONSTRUCTED BY T HE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABOVE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPLICATION FOR OBTAINING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND CONSEQUENT THERETO THE COMPLET ION CERTIFICATE HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TILL DATE. 10. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING, WHICH HAD BEEN OCCUPIED BY THE OWNERS WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PROVIDE D UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT, MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESS EE HAD NOT ITA NO.607/PN/2011 M/S. UJJWAL CONSTRUCTION 9 RECEIVED THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE, THE SAID CLAIM UNDER SEC TION 80- IB(10) OF THE ACT CAN BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CH D DEVELOPERS LTD., (2014) 362 ITR 177 (DELHI) NOTED THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT AND THE PRE-AMENDED PROVISIO NS WHICH WERE AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2000 W.E.F. 01.04.2001 AND ALS O THE SUBSTITUTION BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004 W.E.F. 01.04.2005 A ND HELD THAT IN THE PRE-AMENDED PROVISIONS WHEN THE PLAN WA S SANCTIONED/APPROVED, THERE WAS NO CONDITION OF PRODUCTION OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT TH E IT WAS A SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE LAW EXISTING AT THE PAR TICULAR TIME WOULD BE APPLICABLE, UNLESS AND UNTIL IT WAS SPECIFICALLY MADE RETROSPECTIVE BY THE LEGISLATURE. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THUS HELD T HAT THE SUBSTITUTION SO MADE, IS THEREFORE, APPLICABLE PRO SPECTIVELY AND NOT RETROSPECTIVELY. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHD DEVELOPERS LTD. (SUPRA), THE APP ROVAL WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 16.03.2005 AND THE ASSESSE E WAS EXPECTED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2009. THE ISS UE ARISING BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS WHETHER THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN TIME. THE HIGH COURT NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD VIDE LETTER DATED 05.11.2008 INFORMED THE AUTHORITIES THAT THE CONSTRUCTION HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND FURTHER REQUEST W AS MADE FOR GRANT OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. HOWEVER, NO COMPLETION CERT IFICATE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE H IGH COURT NON- OBTAINING OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT REQUIREMENT TO T HE PROJECTS WHICH WERE APPROVED PRIOR TO 01.04.205 WHEN THE AMENDME NT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2004 WAS MADE EFFECTIVE. ITA NO.607/PN/2011 M/S. UJJWAL CONSTRUCTION 10 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PROJECT HAS BEEN APPRO VED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE 01.04.2005 WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE RATIO OF THE JUDGE MENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHD DEVELOPER S LTD. (SUPRA) SQUARELY APPLIES. HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLIS H BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT AS SANC TIONED WAS COMPLETED BEFORE THE STIPULATED DATE. ON THIS ASPECT, ASS ESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY POINTING OUT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER , CIT(A), AS WELL AS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WAS COM PLETED BEFORE THE STIPULATED DATE. THE FLATS HAVE BEEN SOLD AND ARE OC CUPIED BY THE RESPECTIVE CUSTOMERS. IT HAS ALSO BEEN POINTED OUT THA T IN SOME OF THE CASES THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS ISSUED INDIVIDUAL COMPLETION CE RTIFICATES TO THE RESPECTIVE FLAT OWNERS. OTHER DOCUMENT VIZ. PROP ERTY TAX ASSESSMENT OF SOME INDIVIDUAL FLAT OWNERS, ELECTRICITY BILLS SHOW ING OCCUPATION OF THE FLATS, ETC. HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF HEARING. WE FIND THAT THE SAID MATERIAL WAS PLACED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN REPUDIATED AT ALL. THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION HAS BEEN SOLELY ON NON-OBTAINING OF COMPLETION C ERTIFICATE, WHICH IN THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO BE INS ISTED UPON IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. CHD DEVELOPERS LTD. (SUPRA). 13. IN THE AFORESAID, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ITA NO.607/PN/2011 M/S. UJJWAL CONSTRUCTION 11 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 31 ST OCTOBER, 2014. GCVSR/SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-I, PUNE; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PUNE