Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune V. Kaiser Jamil Khan, Pune

ITA 920/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6712 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-09-2020
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MALVIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: AKASH ROMANI
• Section: 143(3); 80IB; 80IA; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO.920/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 ACIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE. .. /APPLICANT / V/S. KAISER JAMIL KHAN, 2, IIIRD FLOOR KONARK, ADITYA CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY, CASTELLINO, GOLIBAR MAIDAN, CAMP, PUNE-411001. PAN: AIEPK2404L .. / RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI ALOK MALVIYA ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AKASH ROMANI / DATE OF HEARING : 03.09.2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.09.2020 / ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, VP: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-5, PUNE DATED 30.11.2016 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB(10), EVEN IF THE PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN 4 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROJECT? 2. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10)(F). 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROMOTERS, BUILDERS AND LAND DEVELOPERS. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY HIM ON 29.09.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.21,37,560/- AFTER CLAIMING A DEDUCTION OF RS.1,98,14,321/- U/S 2 ITA NO.920/PUN/2017 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF A HOUSING PROJECT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WAS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON SUCH EXAMINATION, HE INTER-ALIA FOUND THAT THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT IT COMPRISED OF BUILDING A, B AND C WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY TILL 31 ST MARCH, 2012 I.E. WITHIN 4 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF PROJECT. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD APPLIED FOR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF ITS HOUSING PROJECT ON 14.03.2012 BUT THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING COMPLETED THE SAID HOUSING PROJECT WAS DULY SUPPORTED BY A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ARCHITECT OF THE SAID PROJECT. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BY RELYING ON EXPLANATION (II) BELOW SECTION 80IB(10)(A) OF THE ACT, HE HELD THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPRISING OF BUILDING A, B AND C WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD AND ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) WAS DISALLOWED BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE AN ORDER DATED 26.03.2015. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DISPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF HIS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THE FLATS IN BUILDING A, B AND C WERE SOLD OUT AND POSSESSION OF THE SAME WAS ALSO PHYSICALLY GIVEN TO THE FLAT OWNERS BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF COMPLETION. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE NOCS REQUIRED FOR OBTAINING THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WERE OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF COMPLETION AND EVEN THE APPLICATION FOR 3 ITA NO.920/PUN/2017 COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WELL BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF COMPLETION. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE RIGHT TO ISSUE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS COMPLETELY VESTED WITH THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NO DIRECT OR INDIRECT CONTROL OVER IT, HIS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE DENIED ON THIS TECHNICAL GROUND WHEN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WAS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED BEFORE THE DUE DATE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF FORMAL ISSUE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM LOCAL AUTHORITY WITHIN TIME PERIOD WAS NOT MANDATORY IN NATURE. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IF ITS CLAIM FOR COMPLETION OF PROJECT WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT WAS SUPPORTED BY A CERTIFICATE OF ARCHITECT CONFIRMING THE COMPLETION OF PROJECT WITHIN TIME AND APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR OBTAINING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE. 4. THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE WAS FOUND FAVOUR WITH THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HELD, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO.8.6 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT FOR NON- ISSUANCE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE THE STIPULATED DATE OF COMPLETION :- 8.6 I HAVE PERUSED CAREFULLY THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) FOR HIS PROJECT 'SPARKLE AVENUE' DIGHI PUNE. THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON THE GROUNDS OF NON-SUBMISSION OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE HOLDING THE PROJECT TO BE NOT COMPLETE IN VIEW OF THE REVISION IN THE YEAR 2014 AND VIOLATION OF SECTION 80IB(10)(F). BEFORE ME, IT WAS CONTENTED THAT THE PLAN OF THE PROJECT WAS FIRST APPROVED ON 08.02.2007 AND REVISED AGAIN ON 10.08.2010 AND CONSISTED OF FOUR BUILDINGS A, B, C' AND D. BUILDING A, B & C WERE COMPLETED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF COMPLETION. THE ASSESSEE HAD THE ARCHITECT CERTIFICATE AND ALL THE DOCUMENTS OF SALE DEED, POSSESSION RECEIPT, ELECTRICITY BILLS, WATER CHARGE BILLS, ETC WERE PLACED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. ALL THE FLATS WERE SOLD AND THE POSSESSION WAS PASSED TO THE FLAT OWNERS. THE ARCHITECT'S COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS ALSO PLACED BEFORE THE AO. THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO APPLIED FOR THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON 14.03.2012. BEFORE 4 ITA NO.920/PUN/2017 ME, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT MERE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE NOT BEEN ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY SHOULD NOT VITIATE THE VERY OBJECT OF ENACTMENT OF LAW. I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT, IN LIGHT OF A PLETHORA OF JUDGMENTS ON THIS ISSUE BY VARIOUS TRIBUNALS AND HIGH COURTS INCLUDING THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL AND HIGH COURT. THE HONORABLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF BAJAJ TEMPO LTD 62 TAXMAN 480 CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA WHICH ARE SIMILAR TO SECTION 80IB AS GRANTING INCENTIVES FOR PROMOTING GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT TO BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY. THE SAME PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SIDDHIVINAYAK KOHINOOR VENTURE VS. ACIT (2014) 159 TTJ 0390 (PUNE), WHICH IN TURN RELIED ON THE CASE OF M/S. HINDUSTAN SAMUHA AWAS LTD. VS. ITO WHEREIN ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED CLAIM CONSIDERING THAT '(I) CERTIFICATE OF ARCHITECT CONFIRMING THAT CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETE; AND, (II) APPLICATION FOR OBTAINING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS MOVED BEFORE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE SPECIFIED DATE. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT DELAY IN ISSUING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO ASSESSEE OR TO ANY NON-COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION'. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR OBTAINING THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ON 14.03.2012 WHICH IS BEFORE THE STIPULATED DATE OF COMPLETION. IN VIEW OF THIS THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) BY THE AO ON THE ISSUE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE CANNOT BE UPHELD. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. DR HAS STRONGLY RELIED ON EXPLANATION (II) BELOW SECTION 80IB(10)(A) OF THE ACT IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUES CASE ON THIS ISSUE WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE A DATE ON WHICH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEES HOUSING PROJECT WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF COMPLETION, THE SAID PROJECT CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETED DURING THE STIPULATED PERIOD AND THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT BY HOLDING THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED DURING THE STIPULATED PERIOD OVERLOOKING THIS VITAL AND RELEVANT PROVISION OF LAW. HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE SAID COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY EVEN NOW AT THIS STAGE AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 8 YEARS. 5 ITA NO.920/PUN/2017 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING A, B AND C OF THE PROJECT WAS DULY COMPLETED WELL BEFORE THE STIPULATED DATE OF COMPLETION I.E. 31 ST MARCH, 2012 AND THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WAS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT COMPRISING OF BUILDING A, B AND C. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE NOCS REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WERE DULY OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WELL BEFORE 31 ST MARCH, 2012 AND EVEN THE APPLICATION FOR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON 14.03.2012. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE FLATS IN BUILDING A, B AND C WERE SOLD OUT AND EVEN POSSESSION OF THE SAME WAS PHYSICALLY HANDED OVER TO THE FLAT OWNERS BEFORE THE STIPULATED DATE OF COMPLETION. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE ARCHITECT CERTIFICATE CONFIRMING THE COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING A, B AND C BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF COMPLETION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT COMPRISING OF BUILDING A, B AND C BEFORE DUE DATE OF COMPLETION WAS DULY SUBSTANTIATED AND WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANYTHING TO DISPUTE THE SAME, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE TECHNICAL GROUND THAT THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE DUE DATE OF COMPLETION. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF FORMAL ISSUE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD IS NOT MANDATORY IN NATURE AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TARNETAR CORPORATION (SUPRA) AND SINCE THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 80IB(10) WERE SUBSTANTIALLY SATISFIED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT COMPRISING OF BUILDING A, B AND C AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE MATTER RELATING TO ISSUE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IS COMPLETELY VESTED WITH THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO DIRECT OR INDIRECT CONTROL OVER IT, HIS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) 6 ITA NO.920/PUN/2017 CANNOT BE DENIED FOR NON-ISSUANCE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE DUE DATE OF COMPLETION WHEN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF COMPLETION OF BUILDING WAS DULY SUPPORTED AND SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SIDDHIVINAYAK KOHINOOR VENTURE VS. ACIT 159 TTJ 390 WHEREIN SIMILAR CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB WAS ALLOWED CONSIDERING THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF ARCHITECT CONFIRMING COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN THE APPLICATION FOR OBTAINING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE SPECIFIED DATE. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING COMPLETED THE PROJECT COMPRISING OF BUILDING A, B AND C BEFORE THE STIPULATED DATE OF COMPLETION I.E. 31 ST MARCH, 2012 IS SUPPORTED BY FOLLOWING DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE :- (I) ALL THE NOCS REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING FOR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM LOCAL AUTHORITY WERE OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF COMPLETION. (II) A CERTIFICATE FROM ARCHITECT WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMING THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING A, B AND C OF THE PROJECT WAS DULY COMPLETED BEFORE DUE DATE OF COMPLETION. (III) APPLICATION FOR OBTAINING THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 14.03.2012. (IV) ALL THE FLATS IN BUILDING A, B AND C WERE SOLD OUT AND POSSESSION OF THE SAME WAS PHYSICALLY HANDED OVER BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE FLAT OWNERS EVEN BEFORE DUE DATE OF COMPLETION. 7 ITA NO.920/PUN/2017 8. A PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ABOVE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT HIS CLAIM OF HAVING COMPLETED THE PROJECT COMPRISING OF BUILDING A, B AND C BEFORE 31 ST MARCH, 2012 WAS DULY SUPPORTED AND SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NOTHING BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DOUBT OR DISPUTE THE SAME. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10), HOWEVER, WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. IN THIS REGARD, HE RELIED ON EXPLANATION (II) BELOW SECTION 80IB(10)(A) WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. AS HELD BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TARNETAR CORPORATION (SUPRA), THE REQUIREMENT OF FORMAL ISSUE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM LOCAL AUTHORITY WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD IS NOT MANDATORY IN NATURE AND IF THE PROJECT IS FOUND TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD ON EVIDENCE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB CANNOT BE DENIED ON THIS TECHNICAL GROUND. IN ANOTHER CASE OF SIDDHIVINAYAK KOHINOOR VENTURE VS. ACIT (SUPRA) CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB ON THE BASIS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ARCHITECT CONFIRMING THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AND THE FACT THAT THE APPLICATION FOR OBTAINING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WELL WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE DELAY IN ISSUING OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WAS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE OR TO ANY NON- COMPLETION OF CONSTRICTION AND, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB COULD NOT BE DENIED. 8 ITA NO.920/PUN/2017 9. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TARNETAR CORPORATION (SUPRA) AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF SIDDHIVINAYAK KOHINOOR VENTURE VS. ACIT (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING COMPLETED THE PROJECT COMPRISING OF BUILDING A, B AND C WAS DULY SUPPORTED AND SUBSTANTIATED BY THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 80IB(10), THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING HIS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS MERELY ON TECHNICAL GROUND THAT THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF COMPLETION. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT COMPRISING OF BUILDING A, B AND C AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 09 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- ( S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ) ( P.M. JAGTAP ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT / PUNE; / DATED : 09 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020 SUJEET / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)-5, PUNE. 4. THE PR. CIT-4, PUNE. 5 . , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE.