ACIT, Bangalore V. M/s Classic Developers, Bangalore

ITA 823/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5567 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARSHA PRAKASH CITIIDR
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.823/BANG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE. : APPELLANT VS. M/S. CLASSIC DEVELOPERS, NO.41, MANTRI HOUSE, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARSHA PRAKASH, CIT-II(DR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V. SRINIVASAN, C.A. O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL INSTITUTED BY THE REVENUE IS ARI SING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)-I, BANGALORE DATED 21.4.20 10. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED IS 2007-08 IN THE CASE OF M/S. CLASS IC DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE. 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS TO WHETHER THE CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW DEDU CTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT . ITA NO.823BANG/10 PAGE 2 OF 17 3. THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE, BRIEFLY, AR E AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE FIRM [THE ASSESSEE IN SHORT HENCEFORTH] IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF APARTMEN TS AND RELATED ACTIVITIES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION, A RETURN OF INCOME WAS FURNISHED ON 31.10.2007, ADMITTING A TOT AL INCOME OF RS.29.49 LAKHS AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.49.25 CRORES U /S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD FLATS IN A COMPLEX KNOWN AS MANTRI SPLENDOR, FOR WHICH, CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT. 3.1. THE AO, IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, WHILE BROWSING THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS ON THE INTERNET , NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN FLATS IN THE RANGES OF 1230 28 00 SFT, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH, THE ASSESSEE WAS QUERIED AS TO WHY THE DEDUC TION CLAIMED SHOULD NOT BE NEGATED AS THE ALLEGED BUILT-UP AREA OF EACH FLAT WAS MORE THAN 1500 SFT. IN COMPLIANCE, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT TH E PROJECT WAS DEVELOPED BY IT AND THE WEBSITE BELONGS TO M/S. MANTRI DEVELO PERS PVT. LTD. AND THAT IT WAS BASICALLY IN THE NATURE OF AN ADVERTISEMENT TO ATTRACT THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS ETC., 3.2. BRUSHING ASIDE THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATI ON AS UNCONVINCING, THE AO HAD, SUBSEQUENTLY, VENTURED TO INSPECT THE HOUS ING PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO MEASUREMENTS OF SOME OF THE FLATS WERE TAKEN IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEES ENGINEER AND REPRESENTAT IVE. IN FURTHERANCE, HER INSPECTOR WAS DEPUTED TO TAKE MEASUREMENTS OF S OME OTHER RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND BASED ON SUCH EXERCISE, ACCORDING TO THE AO, THERE WERE CERTAIN VARIATIONS FROM THE SANCTIONED PLAN AND, ACCORDINGL Y, ARRIVED AT A ITA NO.823BANG/10 PAGE 3 OF 17 CONCLUSION THAT THE BUILT-UP AREA OF CERTAIN FLATS EXCEEDED THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF 1500 SFT., AND, THUS, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTI ON U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED FOR THE DETAILED REASONS RECORDED IN HER IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION SO CLAIMED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY. A COMPREHENSIVE SUBMISSION WAS PUT-FORTH BEFORE THE L D. CIT (A) TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM. IN FURTHERANCE, IT WAS ARGUED THAT IN THE C OURSE OF INSPECTION, THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT FIND ANY APARTMENT WHICH MEASURE D 2800 SFT AS ADVERTISED IN THE WEBSITE OF MANTRI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. IT WAS, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT THE BUILT-UP AREA OF ALL THE FLATS I N THE SAID PROJECT WERE AROUND 1500 SFT., AND THAT DUE TO SOME ERRONEOUS CA LCULATION OF BUILT-UP AREA BY THE AO, SOME OF THE FLATS WERE CONSIDERED T O BE HAVING BUILT-UP AREA MARGINALLY OVER AND ABOVE 1500 SFT. THE EXERC ISE UNDER TAKEN BY THE AO WAS STRONGLY OBJECTED TO BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE PHYSICAL VERIFICATION DONE BY THE AO WAS ON A ROUGH AND READY METHOD WITHOUT THE BACKING OF ANY EXPERTISE PROVIDED BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER WHEREAS THE MEASUREMENTS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS, IN FACT, WORKED OUT BY ITS CHARTERED ENGINEER AND THE ARCHITECT WH ICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN OPTED FOR AS CORRECT AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE DEDUCTI ON U/S 80IB OF THE ACT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. 4.1. THE LD. CIT (A), AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF THE P ROVISIONS OF S.80 IB (10) ITA NO.823BANG/10 PAGE 4 OF 17 OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT ( A) AT PARA 7.1 READ AS FOLLOWS: 7.1. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE AND I FIND MERIT IN THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE WEBSITE IS NOT RELIABLE. THIS IS BECAUSE NO FLAT OF 2800 SFT. WAS FOUND AT THE TIME OF PHYSICAL INSPECTION. SO THIS CANNOT BE BASIS FOR D ISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE NEXT LIMB RELATES TO THE OBSERVATIONS THAT THE BUILT-UP AREA OF CERTAIN FLAT S EXCEEDS 1500 SFT. HERE ALSO, I FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE AREA OF THE FLATS HAS BEEN COMPUTED BY AN AUTHORISE D ENGINEER/ARCHITECT BASED ON SCIENTIFIC MEASUREMENTS AND APPLICATION OF ENGINEERING METHODS AND FORMULA. THE AREA ARRIV ED AT BY THE A.O. IS BASED ON PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS TAKEN AND BY COMP UTING THE AREA ON A ROUGH AND READY METHOD. THIS TYPE OF WORKING OUT OF THE AREA CANNOT BE A GROUND TO DENY THE DEDUCTION ESPECIALLY , WHEN THE DIFFERENCE IN THE AREA COMPUTED BY THE APPELLANT AN D BACKED BY A CERTIFIED ARCHITECT IS MORE OR LESS SIMILAR. IN TH E CASE OF FLAT B 402, THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN BUILT-UP AREA OF 1490 SFT. AND ALSO COMPUTED THE SAME AT 1488.83 SFT. IN THE WORKINGS FILED BEFO RE THE A.O. THE A.O. HAS ARRIVED AT THE AREA AT 1510.5 SQFT. AND THE VAR IATION IN THE AREA IS 15 SFT. IN RESPECT OF THE FLAT C 203, THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THE BUILT-UP AREA OF 1490 SQFT. THE A.O. HAS COMPUTED THE AREA AT 1551.48 SQFT IN THE SCHEDULE AND HAS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER THAT THE WALL THICKNESS WAS TAKEN AT 8 INCHES AND IF IT WAS TAKEN AT 6 INCHES AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT, THE AREA OF THE FLAT COME S TO 1521.05 SQFT. THE DIFFERENCE IN AREA IN RESPECT OF THIS FLAT COME S TO 31 SQFT. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. HAS DENIED THE DEDU CTION BASICALLY BECAUSE OF SOME EXCESS AREA WORKED OUT, WHICH AT BE ST IS MARGINAL. AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT, THERE IS BOUND TO BE SOME MINOR VARIATION WHILE WORKING OUT THE AREA DUE TO MULTIPLICATION, R OUNDING OFF ETC. SOME DEGREES OF INACCURACIES ARE EXPECTED IN THIS T YPE OF CASES. SO LONG AS THE VARIATION IN THE AREA IS NOT SHOCKING, PATENTLY WRONG AND TOTALLY DEVOID AND DIVORCED TO THE GROUND REALITIES , IT WOULD NOT BE PROPER FOR THE A.O. TO TAKE RECOURSE TO SUCH DRASTI C ACTION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 80IB(10) OF I.T. ACT WHEN THE A.O . HAS ARRIVED AT MORE OR LESS THE VERY SAME AREA AS COMPUTED BY THE APPELLANT. EVEN THE ENGINEERS GIVE REBATE OR LEAVE MARGIN OF 5% WHI LE COMPUTING THE AREA AS WELL AS COST FOR ANY STATISTICAL ERROR. WH EN THE EXPERTS ADOPT SUCH METHOD, THE PERSON HAVING NO SUCH EXPERTISE SH OULD ALSO FOLLOW THE SAME. THUS IF THIS PRACTICE OF WAYS OF THE WOR LD IS CONSIDERED THE VARIATION OF 15 SQFT IN THE CASE OF FLAT B 402 AND VARIATION OF 31 SQFT IN THE CASE OF FLAT NO.C-203 IS MUCH LESS AND ACCEPTAB LE. BESIDES THIS SECTION IS AN INCENTIVE PROVISION AND THEREFORE DES ERVES NOT STRICT BUT LIBERAL INTERPRETATION. THEREFORE, I OBSERVE THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF ITA NO.823BANG/10 PAGE 5 OF 17 PROVISIONS OF S.80 IB(10) OF I.T. ACT AND EVEN IF S UCH SMALL MARGINAL DIFFERENCE IS CONSIDERED TO EXIST THE SAME BEING VE RY PETTY AND NOT EXTRAORDINARY OR SHOCKING OR LARGE DESERVES NOT DIS ALLOWANCE. 5. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPE AL BEFORE US. THE LD. D R SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROV ISIONS OF S. 80IB (10) OF THE ACT, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS CLEAR VARIATION IN S O FAR AS THE MAXIMUM BUILT-UP AREA OF 1500 SFT WAS CONCERNED IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN FLATS. HE, FURTHER, SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD FAILED T O APPRECIATE THAT ON PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ENGINEER AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OMITTED TO SHOW ACCURATELY THE BUILT-UP AREA OF CE RTAIN FLATS/UNITS, WHILE CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE LD . D R FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO ERRED IN COMING TO A CONC LUSION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S. 80IB (10) OF THE ACT BEING AN INCENTIVE PROVI SION, DESERVES LIBERAL INTERPRETATION AND NOT STRICT INTERPRETATION, WITHO UT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S. 80IB (10) ARE CLEAR AND UNAMBI GUOUS. 5.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI V. SRINIVASAN, THE LD. A R CAME UP WITH SPIRITED ARGUMENTS, THE SUBSTANCES OF WHICH, ARE SU MMARIZED THAT - THE MAIN THEME ON WHICH THE AO DENIED THE LEGITIMAT E DEDUCTION CLAIMED WAS THAT THE BUILT-UP AREA OF 8 FLATS EXCE EDED 1500 SFT., WHICH INFERRED BASED ON THE PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS ( AND COMPUTATION OF THE BUILT-UP AREA) TAKEN BY THE AO A ND A TEAM OF INSPECTORS IN RESPECT OF B-402 AND C 203 FLATS; TH AT THE AO OBSERVED THAT SIX OTHER FLATS HAVING SIMILAR DIMENS IONS VIZ., B-202, B-602, B-802, C-403, C-603 & C-803 WOULD ALSO HAVE THE BUILT-UP AREA EXCEEDING 1500 SFT AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSE E WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION; ITA NO.823BANG/10 PAGE 6 OF 17 - DURING THE COURSE OF INSPECTION, THE AO HAD TAKEN O NLY MEASUREMENTS OF FLATS A 104 AND C 203, BUT, NOT COM PUTED THE BUILT-UP AREA OF SUCH FLATS, THAT SUBSEQUENTLY HER INSPECTORS VISITED THE PROJECT AREA ON 22.12.09 AND TOOK MEASUREMENTS IN RESPECT OF FIVE MORE FLATS; THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT HEARING, TH E AR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWN THE WORKING OF THE BUILT-UP AREA COMPUTED BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF C 203 AND B 402 FLATS; - THAT WHEN THE AR PLEADED WITH THE AO TO PROVIDE A C OPY OF WORKING WHICH COULD BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSEES ENGINEER AS HE (THE AR) WAS NOT TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED TO VERIFY SUCH WORKIN G, INSTEAD, THE AO HAD PROVIDED THE MANUAL SKETCH MADE BY HER INSPE CTOR ON A PLAIN SHEET OF PAPER AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION AND DIRECTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILES CALCULATION OF THE BUILT-UP AREA AS PER THE SAID MANUAL SKETCH WHICH WAS PREPARED WITHOUT PROPER SCA LING; THAT AFTER PERUSING THE WORKINGS OF THE AO WHICH CONTAIN ED CERTAIN MISTAKES IN THE COMPUTATION OF BUILT-UP AREA ETC., THE ASSESSEES ENGINEER [WHOSE PRESENCE WAS SECURED AT THE TIME OF HEARING] WORKED OUT THE BUILT UP AREA OF FLATS B-402 AT 1497 .47 SFT., AND FLAT C-203 AT 1493.77 SFT., CONSIDERING THE ASSUMPTIONS AS INSTRUCTED BY THE AO; - BRUSHING ASIDE THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION, THE AO MA INTAINED THAT GOING BY THE METHOD OF WORKING ADOPTED BY THE ASSES SEES ENGINEER, EVEN THEN THE ENGINEER HAD ARRIVED AT THE BUILT UP AREA OF FLAT B 402 AT 1506.47 SFT BEFORE DEDUCTING THE AREA OF 9 S FT TAKEN TWICE AND VIEWED FROM THIS ANGLE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD VIOLA TED THE CONDITION RELATING TO THE EXTENT OF BUILT-UP AREA; - OBJECTING TO THE AOS ASSERTION THAT THE ASSESSEES AR AS WELL AS THE ENGINEER HAVE AGREED TO THE WORKING METHOD ADOPTED BY THE AO TO ARRIVE AT THE BUILT-UP AREA, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEES ENGINEER HAD FOLLOWED THE METHOD DEVISED BY THE AO THOUGH IT WAS UNSCIENTIFIC AND UNACCEPTED METHOD OF COMPUTING THE BUILT-UP AREA AND EXPLAINED THAT THE BUILT-UP AREA, IN FACT, DID NOT EXCEED 1500 SFT.; - THAT THE AO WAS APPRAISED BY THE ASSESSEES LETTER DT.30.12.09 THAT THE BUILT-UP AREA ARRIVED AT BY THE AO WAS ERRONEOU S AND EVEN GOING BY THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE AO, THE AREA OF THE FLAT B 402 WAS ONLY 1506.07 SFT AFTER CONSIDERING THE AREA OF 9 SFT., WHICH WAS TAKEN TWICE. HOWEVER, WHILE FRAMING THE ORDER, THE AO HAD RETAINED THE AREA OF THE FLAT AT 1510.85 SFT WHICH WAS ERRONEOUS; - THAT THE AO WAS NOT AN EXPERT/TECHNICALLY COMPETENT IN THE FIELD OF CIVIL ENGINEERING/CONSTRUCTION TO COMPUTE THE BUILT -UP AREA OF ITA NO.823BANG/10 PAGE 7 OF 17 RESIDENTIAL UNITS; THAT THE METHOD FOLLOWED BY HER WAS A ROUGH, VOGUE AND AN UNSCIENTIFIC OF MULTIPLYING THE LENGTH INTO BREADTH TO COMPUTE THE BUILT-UP AREA WHICH WAS ERRONEOUS, WHEREAS, THE COMPUTATION OF BUILT-UP AREA ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSE E WAS BASED ON THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED AND SCIENTIFIC/ENGINEERING M ETHOD EMPLOYED BY CIVIL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS; THAT A CERTIFICA TE FROM AN ARCHITECT WHO WAS AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD OF CONSTRU CTION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISCARDED BY THE AO BY CLINGING ON THE CALCULATION DONE BY A PERSON WHO WAS NEITHER AN EX PERT NOR TECHNICALLY SOUND THAT TOO BASED ON A ROUGH, VAGUE AND UNSCIENTIFIC METHOD; - THAT IN A COMPLEX STRUCTURE LIKE THE PRESENT ONE, T HE BUILT UP AREA HAS TO BE ASCERTAINED ON A SCIENTIFIC BASIS BY A QU ALIFIED ENGINEER, APPLYING RATIONALE AND ACCEPTED METHODS OF COMPUTIN G THE BUILT UP AREA, BUT, NOT IN A MERE MATHEMATICAL EXERCISE OF M ULTIPLYING THE LENGTH INTO BREADTH TO ARRIVE AT THE DESIRED FIGURE ; - THAT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF AN EXPERT WHICH CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT THE FACT THAT THE BUILT-UP AREA OF ALL THE FLATS LESS THAN 1500 SFT WAS FURNISHED, HOWEVER, THE AO TOOK A DIVE RGENT VIEW BY ERRONEOUSLY EMPLOYING CERTAIN PARAMETERS AND ARRIVE D AT THE BUILT- UP AREA OF TWO FLATS MARGINALLY IN EXCESS OF 1500 SFT EACH; - THAT WHEN THE AREA COMPUTED BY THE AO ON THE RULE O F THUMB WAS NOT SO DIFFERENT FROM THE AREA CERTIFIED BY AN EXP ERT IN THE FIELD, IT DOESNT LIE IN THE MOUTH OF THE AO TO SAY THAT THE AREA COMPUTED BY AN EXPERT WAS UNRELIABLE; - IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY DOUBT, IT WAS SUBMITTED, IN R ESPECT OF THE VERACITY OF THE ASSESSEES ARCHITECTS, THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE MADE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION CELL OF THE DEPARTMENT. THIS HAS NOT BEEN PRECISELY DONE BY THE AO, INSTEAD, SHE HAD HAS TENED TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEES LEGITIM ATE CLAIM WHICH WAS OPPOSED TO LAW; & - THAT THE AOS FINDING THAT THE EIGHT FLATS BUILT-U P AREA EXCEEDED 1500 SFT WAS VITIATED. 5.2. THE LD. A R HAD ALSO FURNISHED A PAPER B OOK CONTAINING 1 36 PAGES WHICH CONSIST OF, AMONG OTHERS, THE COPIES OF (I) CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE AO; (II) ARCHITECTS CERTIFICATE; (III) RO UGH SKETCHES OF FLAT NOS. B ITA NO.823BANG/10 PAGE 8 OF 17 402 & C 203 ETC., DREW BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ALSO C OPIES OF SALE-DEED IN RESPECT OF UNITS B 402 AND C 203 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS, METICULOUSLY EXAMINED THE RELEVANT CASE RECORDS AS WELL AS THE D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE LD. A R IN THE SHAPE OF A PAPER BOO K AND COPIES OF REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. 6.1. THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE, AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. AO, THAT THE BUILT-UP AREA OF SOME OF T HE FLATS, TO BE PRECISE, THE 8 FLATS IN MANTRI SPLENDOR EXCEEDED BUILT-UP AREA OF 1500 SFT., NAMELY: (I) A 104, C 203 & BALCONY OF E 404 IN FLATS C 203 & E 404 EXTRA L SHAPED BALCONY;& (II) A 204, B 402, D 203, E 204 & E 404 IN BLOCK B, THE FLATS HAD 3 TOILETS AS AGAINST 2 SHOWN IN THE PLAN 6.2. IT WAS THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THE BU ILT-UP AREA OF FLATS B-402 AND C 203 WERE 1510.85 SFT AND 1551.48 SFT RESPECTIVELY AND, THUS, THE BUILT-UP AREA OF FLATS B 202, B 602 AND B 802, C 403, C 603 AND C 803 (AS THESE FLATS HAVE BEEN SITUATED ABOVE AND BELOW OF B 402 & C 203) HAVE ALSO EXCEEDED 1500 SFT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO TO OK A STAND THAT AS THESE FLATS HAVE EXCEEDED THE BUILT-UP AREA OF 1500 SFT. EACH, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT FOR THE DETAILED REASONS RECORDED IN HER IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER DISPUT E. 6.3. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y, THE ASSESSEE HAD HOTLY REFUTED THE CONTENTION OF THE AO BY ROLLING OUT THE FACTS AND FIGURES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ISSUE IN DETAIL, THE CIT (A), FOR T HE REASONS RECORDED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, HAD OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF ITA NO.823BANG/10 PAGE 9 OF 17 S. 80IB (10) OF THE ACT AND EVEN IF SUCH SMALL MARG INAL DIFFERENCE IS CONSIDERED TO EXIST THE SAME BEING VERY PETTY AND N OT EXTRAORDINARY OR SHOCKING OR LARGE DESERVES NOT DISALLOWABLE . 6.3.1. THIS WAS, HOWEVER, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO BY THE REVENUE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US. 6.4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE AOS REASONING, ASSESSEES STOUT OPPOSITION TO THE FINDING OF THE AO AND ALSO THE STAND OF THE LD. CIT (A), THE MOOT AND PARAMOUNT QUESTION LINGERING IN OUR MIND IS - WHETHER THE AO WAS WITHIN HER REALM TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD, IN FACT, VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF S.80 IB (10) OF THE ACT? 6.5. LET US NOW ANALYZE THE SEQUENCE OF EVE NTS IN A CHRONOLOGICAL MANNER, AS UNDER: (I) IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE VER ACITY OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE BUILT UP AREA OF THE RE SIDENTIAL UNITS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONDUCTED AN INSPECTION OF THE SA ID HOUSING PROJECT ON 18.12.2009 AND MADE PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS OF SOME OF THE FLATS CLAIMED TO BE HAVING BUILT UP AREA OF 1490 SFT. Y ET AGAIN, SHE HAD DEPUTED HER INSPECTORS TO MAKE MEASUREMENTS OF SOME MORE RE SIDENTIAL UNITS HAVING ALLEGEDLY EXTENDED BALCONY AND ON THE BASIS OF THE INSPECTORS REPORT ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT SOME OF THE FLA TS E.G., C 203 AND B 402 HAVE EXTENDED BALCONIES WHICH WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE BUILT-UP AREA. (II) AT A GLANCE OF SKETCHES D RAWN BY THE INSPECTOR [SOURCE: PG 25 (B 402) & 26 (C 203) OF PB AR], WE FIND THA T THOSE SKETCHES WERE ITA NO.823BANG/10 PAGE 10 OF 17 MERE ROUGH SKETCHES WITHOUT PROPER SCALING. THESE COULD HAVE, AT BEST, HELPED THE INSPECTOR TO WRITE HIS REPORT AND NOTHIN G-ELSE. (III) IT MAY NOT BE OUT OF P LACE TO POINT OUT THAT WHEN THE AO NOTICED THAT THERE WERE SOME DISCREPANCIES IN ARRIV ING AT THE BUILT UP AREA OF THE HOUSING UNITS AS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AT BEST, SHE SHOULD HAVE RE FERRED THE ISSUE TO THE VALUATION CELL OF THE DEPARTMENT - CONSISTS OF QUAL IFIED CIVIL ENGINEERS BACKED WITH EXPERTISE - TO ASCERTAIN THE VERACITY O F THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. INSTEAD, SHE DONNED HERSELF THE ROLE OF AN EXPERTIS E A QUALIFIED ENGINEER - AND ON THE BASIS OF MEASUREMENTS TAKEN DURING HER I NSPECTION, WORKED OUT THE BUILT UP AREA AND CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT SOM E OF THE FLATS HAVING BUILT UP AREA OF MORE THAN 1500 SFT., ETC. SHE HAD ALSO TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE MEASUREMENTS SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN BY HER INSPECTO R. (IV) A TECHNICALLY AND PROFE SSIONALLY COMPETENT PERSON ONLY WAS EXPECTED TO TAKE MEASUREMENTS AND CALCULATE THE BUILT-UP AREAS OF AN APARTMENT/BUILDING. AN INSPECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO ASSUME THE ROLL OF A TECHNICIAN AND PROFESSIONAL ST ATUS ESPECIALLY WHEN THE REPERCUSSION OF SUCH A FINDING GIVEN BY AN INSPECTO R RESULTS IN DRASTIC CONSEQUENCE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. [THE SKETCHES DRAWN BY THE INSPECTOR ARE APPENDED AS ANNEXURE I & II TO TH IS ORDER FOR READY REFERENCE. ] (V) THE ASSESSEE IN ITS COM MUNICATION DATED 13.11.2009 HAD FURNISHED THE ARCHITECTS CERTIFICATE WITH ENCL OSURE-A WHEREIN THE BUILT UP AREA OF EACH FLAT [SOURCE: P 1 9 OF PB-AR] TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER . ITA NO.823BANG/10 PAGE 11 OF 17 ON A GLIMPSE OF IT, WE FIND THAT EACH FLATS BUILT- UP AREA WAS WELL WITHIN 1500 SFT. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FROM AN EXPERTISE WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE BUILT UP AREA OF THE FLATS WERE WITHIN 1500 SFT. HOWEVER, THE AO HAD ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT SOME OF THE FLATS BUILT-UP AREA HAS EXCEEDED 1500 SFT., SO LELY BASED ON HER WORKING AS WELL AS HER INSPECTORS REPORT BUT NOT BACKED WI TH THE WORKING OF A CIVIL ENGINEER OR AN EXPERTISE/TECHNICALLY COMPETENT AUTH ORITY. (A) IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS APP ROPRIATE TO REFER TO THE ASSESSEES COMMUNICATION TO THE AO DT: 30.12.2009 [REFERENCE: P 28 OF PB AR] WHEREIN IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT - YOU HAD CALLED UPON US TO SUBMIT CLARIFICAT IONS ON VARIATION IN AREAS FOR FLAT NOS. B 402 AND C 203 IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT MANTRI SPLENDOR AND IN THIS CONNECTION, WE WISH T O SUBMIT, AS UNDER: 1. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS YOUR GOOD SELVES HAD DESIRED THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE COMPLIANCE O F THE CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT BE FIL ED. ACCORDINGLY, WE HAVE FURNISHED COPY OF THE SANCTIONED PLAN, SALE DE EDS EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF OUR CUSTOMERS AND CERTIFICATE FROM THE ARCHITECT FOR THE BUILT-AREA OF THE FLATS IN THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MANTRI SPLENDOR IN RESPECT OF WHICH DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CLAIMED . AFTER THE AFORESAID DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, YOUR GOOD SELVES HAS P HYSICALLY VISITED OUR PROJECT MANTRI SPLENDOR AND PERSONALLY INSPECTED AND MEASURED FEW FLATS ON RANDOM BASIS VIZ., A 104 AND C 203 ON 18.12.2009 . FURTHERMORE, ON 22.12.2009, THE INSPECTORS OF YOUR OFFICE VISITED T HE PROJECT AND MEASURED 5 FLATS VIZ., D 203, B 402, A 204, E 204 AND E 404. BASED ON THE AFORESAID INSPECTION, YOUR GOOD SELVES HAS EXPRESSED A VIEW T HAT THE BUILT-UP AREA OF 2 FLATS VIZ., C 203 AND B 402 EXCEEDED 1500 SFT AND , HENCE, THERE WAS VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT. 2. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ABOVE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER OUR CALCULATIONS AND PHYSICAL MEASUREMENT OF ABOVE 2 FLATS ARE BELOW 1500 SFT AND DETAILED CALCULATIONS OF PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON ABOV E DATE IS ATTACHED HEREWITH FOR READY REFERENCE AS PER ANNEXURE 1. WE ARE EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR THE VARIATION IN RESPECT OF THE 2 FLATS AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO.823BANG/10 PAGE 12 OF 17 - IN RESPECT OF FLAT B 402, THE AREA OF THE SAID FLAT IS 1496 SQ FT AS PER OUR CALCULATIONS. IT APPEARS THAT YOUR GOOD SELVES HAVE INCLUDED AN AREA OF 9 SQ FT IN THE CALCULATION ON ACCOUNT OF RE PETITIVE INCLUSION OF 3 INCHES IN THE BALCONY AND RAILING. IT IS SUBM ITTED THAT YOUR GOOD SELVES HAS TAKEN 3 INCHES OCCUPIED BY THE RAIL ING TWICE IN THE OPEN TERRACE AND BALCONY. IF THIS ERROR IS RECTIFI ED, THE AREA COMPUTED BY US IS ACCURATE AND, HENCE, REQUIRES TO BE ACCEPTED; - IN RESPECT OF FLAT C 203, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT YOU HAVE CALCULATED THE AREA OF THE FLAT BY CONSIDERING THE WALL THICKNESS AT 8 INCHES (PERIPHERAL WALL) INSTEAD OF 6 INCHES. IT MAY BE N OTED THAT THE WALL THICKNESS OF 6 INCHES (PERIPHERAL WALL) HAS UNIFORM LY BEEN ADOPTED IN COMPUTING THE AREAS OF ALL THE FLATS AND, THEREF ORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR TAKING THE WALL THICKNESS OF 8 IN CHES IN THIS CASE ALONE. FURTHERMORE, AN AREA OF 9 SQ FT HAS TO BE E XCLUDED FOR REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE. IF THESE 2 ANOMALIES ARE RECTIFIED THE AREA OF THE FLAT WILL BE LOWER THAN 1500 SQ FT AND, HENCE, REQUIRES TO BE ACCEPTED; - APART FROM THE ABOVE, AS INSTRUCTED BY YOUR GOOD SE LVES, WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE EXTERNAL PROJECTIONS/TERRACE AR EAS WHICH ARE NOT COVERED BY THE ROOF/CEILING, HENCE IT IS PURELY TER RACE IN NATURE AND SAME HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE BUILT UP AREA OF T HE FLATS. IN CASE, IF WE DONT CONSIDER THE EXTERNAL PROJECTIONS/TERRA CE AREAS AS EXPLAINED ABOVE WHICH ARE CONSTRUCTED ONLY IN THE A LTERNATIVE FLOORS FOR ELEVATION PURPOSE/AESTHETIC PURPOSE, THEN THE B UILT UP AREAS OF BOTH THE FLATS WILL BE FAR LESSER THAN THE SPECIFIE D LIMITS. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE AND ASSUMING F OR ARGUMENTS SAKE, BUT NOT ADMITTING AND WITHOUT CONCEDING, THAT THE EXTER NAL PROJECTIONS/TERRACE AREAS HAVE TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE BUILT UP A REA OF THE FLATS, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80I B (10) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT SOME O F THE UNITS EXCEED THE SPECIFIED AREA. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE HOUSING P ROJECT DEVELOPED CONSISTS OF SEVERAL UNITS OF RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION. IN AS MUCH AS THE PHRASE EMPLOYED U/S 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT IS RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND NOT THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT IS TO BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF SUCH OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF S.80IB (10) OF THE ACT. (B) THE ABOVE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REINF ORCED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THIS BENCH WITH RECONCILIA TION STATEMENTS OF THE AREAS AS COMPUTED BY THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE FOR FL AT NOS. C 203 AND B 402 ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE TOTAL BUILT UP AREA OF FLAT NOS. C 203 & ITA NO.823BANG/10 PAGE 13 OF 17 B 402 HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT 1493.77 SFT AND 1497.47 S Q FT WHEREAS THE AO CALCULATED AT 1551.48 SFT AND 1510.85 SQ FT RESPECT IVELY. THE LD. A R HAD ASSERTED THAT THE VARIATION IN THE BUILT UP AREAS O F THE TWO FLATS IN CALCULATION OF THE SAME BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE WAS MAINLY DUE TO FAULTY ADOPTION OF THICKNESS OF THE WALLS BY THE AS SESSING AUTHORITY. FOR READY REFERENCE, THE RECONCILIATION SHEETS FURNISHE D BY THE ASSESSEE ARE APPENDED TO THIS ORDER AS ANNEXURE III & IV. (C) THE AO IN HER IMPUGNED ORDER ON PAGE 1 0 HAD OBSERVED THAT ..THE WALL THICKNESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SOME OF THE FLATS IS AS UNDER: FLAT NO. CARPET AREA WALL THICKNESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BUILT- UP AREA A 304 1373.48 116.52 SFT 1490 A 003 1360.96 108.04 SFT 1490 A 103 1390.96 100.04 SFT 1490 B 302 1373.48 116.52 SFT 1490 B 103 1390.96 100.04 SFT 1490 C 104 1345.36 123.64 SFT 1490 IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS OF THE ABOVE FLATS WERE NOT TAKEN AT THE TIME OF PHYSICAL VERIFICATION. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED THE SAME METHOD OF WORKING IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE FLATS WHERE THE BUILT UP AREA HAS BEEN SHOWN AT 1490 SQFT THEN THE BUILT UP AREA OF THESE FLATS ARE ALSO CERTAIN TO EXCEED 1500 SQFT. (D) FROM THE ABOVE ASSERTION OF THE AO, ONE COULD SAFELY INFER AN OPINION THAT THE AO WAS NOT QUITE SURE THAT THE BUI LT-UP AREAS OF THOSE FLATS WERE ALSO EXCEEDED 1500 SFT., AS THE ABOVE CONCLUSI ON OF THE AO WAS BASED ONLY ON PRESUMPTION BUT NOT ON ACTUAL MEASURE MENTS WHICH SHE HERSELF CONCEDED. ITA NO.823BANG/10 PAGE 14 OF 17 (E) DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. A R HAD FURNISHED COPY OF A REGISTERED SALE DEED WHICH WAS EXECUTED ON 20.5.2 006 IN RESPECT OF FLAT B 402 BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE PURCHASERS SHR I G.JAYARAJ AND MRS. ROOPA JAYARAJ OF TRICHUR WHEREIN THE BUILT UP ARE A OF WHICH WAS SHOWN AT 1490 SFT., AND THAT OF THE SUPER BUILT UP AREA BEIN G 1715 SFT WHICH INCLUDES 225 SFT OF COMMON AREA. LIKEWISE, FOR THE FLAT NO .C 203, THE SALE DEED ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI A .K.LAK SHMANAN AND MRS. PADMAJA OF BANGALORE WAS REGISTERED ON 27.11.2006, THE BUILT-UP AREA BEING 1490 SFT WITH THE SUPER BUILT-UP AREA 1715 SF T., WHICH INCLUDES COMMON AREA OF 225 SFT. (F) THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ADVANCED BY THE AS SESSEE MAKES IT EXPLICIT THAT THE BUILT UP AREA OF THE SAID FLAT S HAVE NOT EXCEEDED 1500 SFT AS ATTRIBUTED BY THE AO. 6.6. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE ISSUE AS DISCUSSED IN THE FORE-GOING PARAGRAPHS, WE ARE OF T HE FIRM VIEW THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHILE ARRIVING AT SUCH A FINDING, WE HAVE KEPT THE FOLLOWING POINTS IN VIEW: (I) THE AO HAD BANGED HEAVILY ON THE MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN RESPECT OF FLAT NOS. B 402 AND C 203 TO ASSUME THAT FLAT NOS. A 104, C 203, E 404, A 204, B 402, D 203, E 20 4 AND E 404 HAVE ALSO EXCEEDED 1500 SFT IN BUILT UP A REA. ADMITTEDLY, THE MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN ON ROUGH AN D READY METHOD WITHOUT APPLYING ANY TECHNICAL KNOW-HO W, WHICH, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, CANNOT BE AUTHENTIC; ITA NO.823BANG/10 PAGE 15 OF 17 (II) THE AO HAD PRESUMED THAT THE OTHER SIX FLATS HAVING SIMILAR DIMENSIONS WOULD ALSO HAVE A BUILT-UP AREA EXCEEDING 1500 SFT. ADMITTEDLY, THE MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN ON ROUGH AND READY METHOD WITHOUT APPLYING AN Y TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW WHICH, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, CANNOT BE AUTHENTIC; (III) IN COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION PARLANCE, COMPLEX STRUCTURE S LIKE RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS, THE BUILT-UP AREA OF WHICH HAVE TO BE ASCERTAINED ON A SCIENTIFIC BASIS BY ASSIGNING S UCH A JOB TO A TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED CIVIL ENGINEER WHO APPL IES THE RATIONAL AND ACCEPTED METHODS IN COMPUTING THE BUIL T UP AREA; (IV) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO CONTR ADICT THE BUILT-UP AREA WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE BEING ERRONEOUS, MERELY REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CONTENT ION WAS NOT JUSTIFIABLE; (V) THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RECONCILIATION STATEMENTS [ANNE XURE III & IV SUPRA] HAD BROUGHT OUT THE VARIATION IN ARRIV ING AT THE BUILT UP AREA BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO A ND ALSO THE REASONS THEREOF . HOWEVER, THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN SERIOUS CONSIDERATION BY THE AO WHILE ARRIVIN G AT A CONCLUSION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE FORTH-COMING FROM THE REVENUE, WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE ASS ESSEES ARGUMENTS AS QUITE SENSIBLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . 6.7. BEFORE PARTING WITH, WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION HERE THAT THE LD. D R HAD PLACED A STRONG RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. VISWAS PROMOTERS P. LTD. REPORTED IN (2010) 5 ITR (TRIB) 449 TO DRIVE H OME HIS THEME THAT THE LD. AO WAS RIGHT IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. WITH DUE REGARDS, WE HAVE PERUSED THE F INDING OF THE HONBLE CHENNAI BENCH. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE BENCH, IN BRIEF, WAS THAT THE ITA NO.823BANG/10 PAGE 16 OF 17 ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2004-05 COMPLETED FOUR HOUSING PROJECTS IN THE CITY OF MADURAI, OUT OF THESE, IN TWO OF THE PROJECTS, THE ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTED FLATS EXCEEDING 1500 SFT AND ALSO FLATS OF LESS THAN 1500 SFT IN AREA. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE, THE HONBLE BENCH HAD RIGHT LY HELD THAT APPROVAL WAS ACCORDED TO THE ENTIRE PROJECT. BLOCKS OF RESIDENT IAL UNITS WERE PARTS OF THE PROJECT AND NOT THE PROJECT BY ITSELF AND SUCH A BLOCK OF R ESIDENTIAL UNITS COULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE A SEPARATE PROJECT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR AVAILING OF THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80-IB (10). HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT ISSUE, THE REVENUE HAD NOT BROUGHT O N RECORD ANY EVIDENCE WITH THE BACKING OF AN EXPERTISE TO SUGGEST THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF S. 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT AND, HEN CE, THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE, IN OUR VIEW, CANNOT COME TO ITS RES CUE. THE LD. A R HAD ALSO SOUGHT PERMISSION OF THIS B ENCH TO PLACE RELIANCE ON THE FINDING OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL, PU NE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF BRAHMA ASSOCIATES V. JCIT REPORTED IN (2009 ) 122 TTJ (PUNE) (SB) 433 TO SUPPORT HIS VIEW POINT. WE HAVE PERUSED THE FINDING OF THE HONBLE BENCH (C ITED SUPRA) WHICH HAS BEEN DULY KEPT IN VIEW WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. 6.8. IN A NUT-SHELL, THE LD. AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE LEGITIMATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF MANTRI SPLENDOR HOUSING PROJECT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.823BANG/10 PAGE 17 OF 17 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS, THE 31 ST DAY OF MAY, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 31 ST MAY, 2011 A NNEXURE I, II, III & IV. DS/- COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE (1+1) BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.