M/s. Cosmopolis Construction, Pune V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 883/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2020 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUNDAN
• Assessee Lawyers: NILESH KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA , A M . / ITA NO. 883 /PN/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 - 1 1 M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION MZSK & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, LEVEL 3, RIVERSIDE BUSINESS BAY, PLOT NO.84, WELLESLEY ROAD, NEAR RTO, PUNE 411001 . / AP PELLANT PAN: AA AAC3785B VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 ( 1 ), PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NILESH KHANDELWAL / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH KUNDAN / DATE OF HEARING : 06 . 04 .201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07 . 04 .201 6 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - I , PUNE , DATED 29 . 1 1 .20 1 3 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 1 1 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THE CASE AND AS PER PROVISIONS & SCHEME OF THE ACT IT BE HELD THAT, THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE TO THE CLAIM IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 883 /PN/20 1 4 M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 2 IT FURTHER BE HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE AND CONSEQUENT ADDITION MADE BY THE AO REJECTING THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THAT CONFIRMED BY THE 1 ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY I N TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC.80IB(10) OF THE ACT IS IMPROPER, UNJUSTIFIED, AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS AND SCHEME OF THE ACT AND FACTS PREVAILING IN THE CASE. THE CLAIM OF RS.13,23,22,863 / - BE HELD AS ALLOWABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT, THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE 1 ST APPELLANT AUTHORITY IN THAT RESPECT BE DELETED. THE APPELLANT BE GRANTED JUST AND PROPER RELIEF IN THE RESPECT. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IT SHOULD FURTHER BE HELD THAT CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THE EARLIER ORDER OF CIT(A) AS PER SETTLED LEGAL JURISPRUDENCE. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION AS PER EARLIER ORDER IS NOT AS PER THE RULES OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE AND THE SAME NEED S TO BE SET ASIDE ON THIS SCORE. THE APPELLANT B E GRANTED COST INCURRED FOR FILING OF APPEAL. THE APPELLANT BE GRANTED JUST AND PROPER RELIEF IN THE RESPECT. 3. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVER ED BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 4. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ISSUE ARISING WAS IN RELATION TO THE ELIGIBILITY OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE SAID DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF UNITS SOLD DURING THE YEAR IN BUILDING A1 TO A6 WHICH WERE PART OF PROJECT A. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE COMP L ETED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAID BUILDING BEFORE DUE DATE I.E. 31.03.2008 . BUT, THE INITIAL PLAN SANCTIONED COMPRISED OF TWO PROJECTS I.E. PROJECT A AND B AND SINCE PROJECT B HAD NOT STARTED, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND FOLLOWING THE SAME, SUCH DEDUCTION WAS DENIED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 ALSO. THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1260/PN/2013, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2015 AFTER CONSIDERING THE ISSUE AT LENGTH, HAD ALLOWED PROPORTIONATE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF COMPLETED UNITS IN PROJECT A. ITA NO. 883 /PN/20 1 4 M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 3 5. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE AS UNDER - 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. WE PROCEED TO CONSIDER T HE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(1 0) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PROJECT A SANCTIONED PRIOR TO PROJECT B, WHICH WAS SANCTIONED ON LATER DATE I.E. AFTER THE RECEIPT OF ORDER OF ULC BY RELEASE OF PLOT FOR CONSTRUCTING THE PROJECT B. THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE WE RE THAT THE COMPANY SHARAN ESTATES PVT. LTD. HAD PURCHASED UNDIVIDED SHARES OF VARIOUS OWNERS OF LAND AT SURVEY NO.186, YERWADA, PUNE ADMEASURING 15900 SQ. MTRS. VIDE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 22.09.1994 , 27.10.1994, 18.08.1995 AND 09.01.1996 . THE SAID LAND WAS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISI ONS OF URBAN LAND CEILING & REGULATION ACT, 1976. THE SAID CONCERN SOUGHT APPROVAL FROM PMC FOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ON THE SAID LAND TO BE DEVELOPED AS PROJECTS A AND B. THE SAID DIVISION WAS BASED ON THE STATUTORY P ROVISION UNDER THE ULC A, 1976 AND THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK. THE PROJECT A WAS ENVISAGED AND SANCTIONED AS PER ORDER UNDER ULCA, DATED 22.11.1998 , UNDER WHICH AN AREA OF 12094 SQ. MTRS. WAS EXEMPTED. THE BALANCE FOR THE ABOVE AREA SANCTIONED ON 14.07. 2001 . THE FIRST BUILDING PLAN WAS SANCTIONED ON 03.06.1997, UNDER WHICH ONE OF THE CONDITIONS WAS TO OBTAIN NOC FOR NALLA / GUTTER. THE COPY OF THE SAID SANCTIONED PLAN IS PLACED AT PAGE 38 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THEREAFTER, THE PAYMENT FOR THE SAID NALLA / GUTTER WAS MADE ON 26.04.1999 AND THE COPY OF THE SAME IS PLACED AT PAGE 41 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE PMC AGAIN ISSUED A COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE NO.2141 DATED 09.06.1999 AFTER THE OBJECTION WAS MET BY THE ASSESSEE. THE COPY OF THE SAID COMMENCEMENT CERTIF ICATE ISSUED BY THE PMC IS PLACED AT PAGE 40 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE SECOND COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS ALSO ISSUED WITH THE CONDITION MEANING NALLA / GUTTER FOR RAIN WATER WAS TO BE REMOVED AFTER THE PAYMENT OF CHARGES AND THE AC TUAL COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED ON 17.04.2004 , COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 43 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE PLEA OF THE COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 43 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS TWO - FOLD IN THIS REGARD . THOUGH THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE , IF ANY, ISSUED PRIOR TO FULFILLING THE CONDI TION OF NALLA / GUTTER FOR RAIN WATER, AND THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED BY THE ULCA HAVING NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH, THE CLEAR AREA OF 12094 SQ. MTRS. WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE ONLY WHEN THIRD COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS OBTAINED ON 14.07.2001. THE COMPAN Y M/S. SHARAN ESTATES PVT. LTD. , DID NOT COMMENCE THE CONSTRUCTION AGAINST WHICH AND THE AOP WAS FORMED ON 19.04.2004, WHICH WAS FORMED AS PRE - CONDITION TO THE PLANS SANCTIONED ON 17.04.2004 . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE INITIAL SANCTION FOR COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROJECT BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WAS GIVEN ON 03.06.1997 I.E. PRIOR TO 1998 WAS NOT CORRECT, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. 11. WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FINDIN GS OF CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT FIRST DATE WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE WOULD BE 03.06.1997, WAS NOT CORRECT. THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT A MADE ONLY BY WAY OF C OMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 09.06.199 9 , THOUGH THE SAME WAS SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF CONDITION OF PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CHARGES OF NALLA / GUTTER. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT THOUGH THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED ON 09.06.1999 , BU T NO CONSTRUCTION WAS STARTED AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT NO EXPENSES FOR CONSTRUCTION HAD BEEN DEBITED AND FURTHER, THE PROJECT HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY THE AOP, WHICH CAME INTO EXISTENCE ONLY ON 19.04.2004 . ANOTHER PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS THAT THE ACTUAL COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY THE PMC ON 17.04.2004 , AND BECAUSE OF THE SAID PRE - CONDITION BEING FULFILLED, THE AOP WAS FORMED ON 19.04.2004. IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE S AID DISPUTE OF DAT E OF CERTIFICATE OF THE PROJEC T, RECOURSE IS MADE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT . THE ITA NO. 883 /PN/20 1 4 M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 4 CLAUSE (A) TO SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT TALKS OF VARIOUS DATES ON WHICH THE UNDERTAKING COMMENCED DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT. IN CASE THE SAID COMMENCEME NT OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT IS ON OR AFTER 01.10.1998 AND WHERE THE HOUSING PROJECT HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, 2004, THEN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAID PROJECT IS TO BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFOR E 31.03.2008 AS PER CLAUSE (I) THEREUNDER. AS PER CLAUSE (II) THEREUNDER, WHERE THE HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON AFTER 0 1 .04.2004, BUT NOT LATER ON 31.03.2005, THEN THE SAME HAS TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE HOUSING PROJECT I S APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. THE EXPLANATION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10)(A) OF THE ACT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT IN CASES WHERE THE APPROVAL IN RESPECT OF HOUSING PROJECT IS OBTAINED MORE THAN ONCE, SUCH H OUSING PROJECT SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE BUILDING PLAN OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS FIRST APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. THERE ARE OTHER CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION I.E. IN RESPECT OF PROJECT BEING A SIZE OF PLOT O F LAND GENERALLY A MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE AND THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS BEING NOT EXCEEDING THE BUILT UP AREA OF 1500 SQ. FT. AND CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON THE COMMERCIAL AREA. ADMITTEDLY, ALL THE OTHER CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT STAND FULFILLED I.E. THE PROJECT IS ON AN AREA EXCEEDING ONE ACRE AND BUILT UP AREA OF THE UNITS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LESS THAN 1500 SQ.FT. THE QUESTION WHICH ARISES BEFORE US IS FIRST THE DATE ON WHICH THE PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY , COMMENCED DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT AND SECONDLY, THE DATE ON WHICH THE SAID PROJECT HAS BEEN COMPLETED. 1 2 . THE SECOND ASPECT OF THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US IS THAT WHERE INITIALLY THE PROJECT WAS ENVISAGED TO COMPRI SE OF PROJECTS A AND B AND WHERE THE PROJEC T B HAS NOT COMPLETED THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTIO N, CAN THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT BE ALLOWED TO THE PROJECT A OR THE SAME HAS TO BE DENIED. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT SINCE THE SANCTION TO CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS A AND B WAS GIVEN ON 03.06.1997 . HOWEVER, SANCTION TO CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS A AND B WAS GIVEN ON 03.06.1997 . HOWEVER, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAID PLEA OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN VIEW OF THE CONDITIONS LAID DO WN IN THE SAID SANCTION ITSELF I.E. IT WAS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL UNDER ULCA, 1976. THE SURPLUS LAND UNDER ULCA, 1976 WAS DECLARED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY I.E. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, PUNE AGGLOMERATION VIDE ORDER DATED 22.12.1998 AT 3806.75 SQ. MTRS., THE EARLIER ULCA ORDER DATED 15.12.1997 HAD ONLY SPECIFIED THE AREA FOR ROAD AND OPEN SPACE. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE COMMENCED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT A ONLY AFTER ULCA ORDER DATED 22.12.1998, TILL THEN THE AREA FOR CONSTRUCTION O F PROJECT B WAS NOT REGULARIZED AND HENCE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE OBSERVATIONS OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD THAT THE PROJECT ENVISAGED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BOTH A AND B. AFTER THE DECLARATION OF THE SURPLUS LAND, THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS I SSUED BY PMC ON 09.06.1999 WITH THE CONDITION THAT NALLA / GUTTER FOR RAIN WATER, WHICH WAS TO BE REMOVED AFTER PAYMENT OF CHARGES. IN VIEW OF THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN VIEW OF THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY ULCA, 1976 AND ALSO THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE PMC IN THE ORIGINAL SANCTION DATED 03.06.1997 , WE HOLD THAT ONLY AFTER THE CLEAR AREA OF 12094 SQ. MTRS., WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 22.12.1998 , DECLAR ING THE SURPLUS LAND , THE SANCTION O F PMC DATED 09.06.1999 FOR PROJECT A IS TO BE CONSIDERED. IT MAY BE REITERATED HERE THAT THE PROJECT B IS NOT ENVISAGED IN THE SANCTION WHICH WAS GIVEN BY THE PMC ON 09.06.1999 . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THIRD COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS OBTAINED ON 14.07.2011 . HOWEVER, NO CONSTRUCTION WAS COMMENCED BY THE COMPANY SHARAN ESTATES PVT. LTD. AND THEREAFTER, ANOTHER PLAN WAS SANCTIONED ON 17.04.2004 BEFORE FORMATION OF AOP ON 19.04.2004 . THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS THAT THE PLAN WAS SANCTIONED ON 17.04.2004, UNDER WHICH THE CONSTRUCTION STARTED AND HENCE, IT IS GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10)(A)(II) OF THE ACT . HOWEVER, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPLANATION UNDER ITA NO. 883 /PN/20 1 4 M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 5 SECTION 80IB(10)(A) OF TH E ACT PROVIDES THAT IN CASES WHERE THE APPROVAL IN RESPECT OF HOUSING PROJECT S ARE OBTAINED MORE THAN ONCE, THEN SUCH HOUSING PROJECTS SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE BUILDING PLAN WAS FIRST APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY . THE BUILDING PLANS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AFTER THE DECLARATION OF SURPLUS LAND BY THE ULCA WAS FIRST APPROVED ON 0 9.06.1999 WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS, WHICH WERE LATER FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BECAUSE ANOTHER PLAN FOR COMMENCEMENT WHICH WAS SANCT IONED ON A LATER DATE I.E. 14.07.2001 AND 19.04.2004 RELATES TO THE INITIAL PLAN SANCTIONED ON 09.06.1999 AND IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IB(10)(A) OF THE ACT , WE HOLD THAT THE PLANS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONSTRUCT PROJECT A W ERE APPROVED ON 09.06.1999 SINCE THESE WERE SANCTIONED ON OR AFTER FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998, BUT BEFORE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, 2004, THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10)(A)(I) OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION ON OR BEFORE 31 .03.2008. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE IN LOCAL LANGUAGE DATED 31.03.2008 PLACED AT PAGE 72 OF THE PAPER BOOK . HOWEVER, ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE SAID DOCUMENT IS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND IT IS N OT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE IS GIVEN FOR 122 FLATS HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSEE BY 31.03.2008. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE VIS - - VIS DOCUMENT PLACED AT PAGE 72 OF THE PAPER BO OK. IN CASE, THE BUILDING IN PROJECT A HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY 31.03.2008, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. IN CASE THE BUILDINGS ARE NOT COMPLETELY CONSTRUCTED BY 31.03.2008, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS E NTITLED ONLY TO THE PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION ON THE PORTION OF BUILDING I.E. FLATS WHICH HAVE COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION BY 31.03.2008 AS THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION BY 31.03.2008 . THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009 - 10 WITH YEAR ENDING 31.03.2009 . THE NECESSARY DETAILS COULD BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD AND IN CASE FOUND TO BE IN ORDER , IN LINE WITH OUR DIRECTIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL COMPUTE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF COMPLETED BUILDINGS OR PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF COMPLETED UNITS. BUILDINGS OR PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF COMPLETED UNITS. 13. THE SECOND STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ORIGINAL PLAN WAS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECTS A AND B AND WHERE PROJECT B HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED BY 31.03.2008 , THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT DOES NOT STAND, IN VIEW OF THE LAND ON WHICH PROJECT B PLANNED WAS UNDER THE ULCA, 1976. VIDE ORDER DATED 22 .12.1998, ONLY THE AREA ON WHICH PROJECT A WAS COMPLETED WAS RELEASED AND THE LAND ON WHICH PROJECT B IS BEING CONSTRUCTED WAS RELEASED ON 21.10.2005 . H ENCE, BEFORE THE ORDER OF ULCA, 1976 , WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE STAND OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THA T THE PROJECT B WAS ALREADY ENVISAGED AS PER THE SANCTIONED PLAN DATED 03.06.1997 . A LTHOUGH THERE IS SANCTION OF PLAN ON 03.06.1997 , BUT THE SAME WAS WITH CONDITIONS I.E. OBTAINING DECLARATION UNDER THE ULCA, 1976 AND THE SAID DECLARATION HAVING BEEN MADE ON 22.11.1998, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD THAT THE PLANS WERE SANCTIONED ON 03.06.1997. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH CO URT IN CIT VS. ASHRAY PREMISES (P.) LTD. (2013) 34 TAXMANN.COM 165 (BOM) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT DOES NOT DETERMINE THE START OF PROJECT AND IT IS ONLY THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WHICH DETERMINES. WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE SAID R ATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN LINE WITH OUR DIRECTIONS AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 883 /PN/20 1 4 M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 6 6. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US POINTED OUT THAT NO DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED BY IT IN RESPECT OF PROJECT B. IN VIEW OF THE ISSUE BEING IDENTICAL TO THE I SSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF COMPLETED UNITS IN PROJECT A. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 7 TH DAY OF APRIL , 201 6 . SD/ - SD/ - (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 7 TH APRIL , 201 6 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A) - I , PUNE ; 4. / THE CIT - I , PUNE ; 5. , , / DR B , ITAT, P UNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE