Virag Deshpanday Developers, Pune V. ITO, Wd.-9(4), Pune

ITA 932/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2602 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V L JAIN
• Keywords: Valuation report; Ignorance of law
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA , AM . / ITA NO. 932 /PN/201 1 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 6 - 07 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS, PLOT NO.3/4, SECTOR NO.27, PCNT, NIGDI, PUNE 411004 . / APPELLANT PAN: A AAFV8849C VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD - 9 ( 4 ) , PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.L. JAIN / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJAY PUNGLIA / DATE OF HEARING : 03 . 12 .201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29 . 0 2 .201 6 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - V , PUNE , DATED 28 . 0 3 .20 1 1 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 6 - 07 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED MODIFIED GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 80IB(10) OF RS.1,10,33,637/ - FOR THE REASONS: ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 2 A. THAT THE AREA OF THE PLOT IS 4000 SQ.MT. AN D THEREFORE LESS THAN ONE ACRE. B. THAT ONE OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT HAS BUILT UP AREA OF MORE THAN 1500 SQ. FT. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT ALLOWING A PRORATA CLAIM U/S 80IB(10) WITH REFERENC E TO THE ELIGIBLE UNITS. 3 . THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR ADD TO THE SAME, IF DEEMED NECESSARY. 3 . THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY WAY OF MODIFIED GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WHICH HAS TWO ASPECTS . T HE FIRST ASPECT IS W HETHER WHERE THE AREA OF PLOT IS 4000 SQ. MTRS. AND THEREFORE, LESS THAN ONE ACRE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE SE COND ASPECT OF THE ISSUE IS THAT ONE OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS HAS BUILT UP AREA OF MORE THAN 1500 SQ. FT AND CAN THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GROUND OF A PPEAL NO.2 , IN ALTERNATE , PRORATA CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE ALLOWED WITH REFERENCE TO ELIGIBLE UNITS. 4. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD FILED RETURN OF IN COME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.9,43,080/ - . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD SHOWN INCOME FROM TWO PROJECTS I.E. THE FIRST PROJECT NAMELY ISHANI GARDEN , UNDER WHICH, IT HAS SHOWN I NCOME AT RS.9,43,080/ - . ANOTHER PROJECT DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS EDEN GARDEN , SITUATED AT BANK LAND NO.2(PART), SECTOR NO.26, PCNT , NIGDI, PUNE. THE ASSESSEE FROM THIS PROJECT HAD DECLARED INCOME AT RS. 1,10,33,637/ - AND HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 3 PROJECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A REFERE NCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER, SOLAPUR TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF DEDUCTION CLAIM ED UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT . THE VALUATION OFFICER HAD SUBMITTED HI S REPORT ON 19.12.2008 , IN WHICH HE REPORTED THAT THE SIZE OF PLOT OF EDEN GARDEN WAS 4000 SQ. MTRS., WHICH WAS BELOW ONE ACRE. FURTHER, THE BUILT UP AREA OF TWIN BUNGALOW (ROW HOUSE) NO.1 WAS AT 183 SQ. MTRS. I.E. 178.20 SQ. MTRS. BUILT UP AREA PLUS 4.80 SQ. MTRS. SLAB / PROJECTION USED AS BALCONY. THE REPORT OF DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) IS SCANNED AND IS REPRODUCED UNDER PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE PERUSAL OF THE REPORT REFLECTS THAT UNDER CLAUSE (B), THE VALUER HAD DECL ARED GROSS AR EA OF THE PLOT AS PER LAY OUT SANCTIONED BY PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (PMC) WAS 4000 SQ. MTRS. AND PLOT AREA WAS LESS THAN ONE ACRE. FURTHER, VALUER HAD REPORTED THE BUILT UP AREA OF THE UNITS CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPECT OF TWIN BUNGALOW NO .1 , BUILT UP AREA WAS MORE THAN 1500 SQ. FT. THE ASSESSEE WAS THUS, SHOW CAUSED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT CLAIMED BY IT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ORIGINAL PLOT AREA WAS 50 00 SQ. MTRS. APPROXIMATELY WHILE ALLOTMENT WAS MADE BY PMC, WHICH WAS INCLUSIVE OF RESIDENTIAL PLOT AND A PROPORTIONATE SECTOR GARDEN SPACE. NOW, SINCE THE GARDEN SPACE WAS DEVELOPED BY PCNTDA , AS PER THEIR POLICY, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN BALANCE RESIDENTI AL PLOT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE STANDARDS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1956 , ADOPTED IN INDIA WITH THE PRIMARY UNIT OF MEA SURE OF AREA IS SQUARE METER I.E. SI UNIT OF MEASUREMENT. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT EARLIER THE AREA WAS MEASUR ED AS ACRES AND GU NTAS. AFTER THE SAID ENACTMENT, THE AREA WAS MEASURED AS HECTARORS AND ARE. NORMALLY, THE CONVERSION IS AS ONE ACRE IS EQUIVALENT TO 0.4046 HECTARE S. AGAIN AS PER THE SAME ACT, THE MEASUREMENT IN AREA WAS UPTO 2 DIGITS, THEREFORE, THE CONVERSION WAS ONE ACRE IS EQUIVALENT TO 0.40 ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 4 HECTARE S, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO 4000 SQ. MTRS. AS PER STANDARDS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 5 NOTED THAT AS PER THE DEVEL OPMENT AGREEMENT OF THE CONCERNED PLOT DATED 16.07.1997, THE AREA OF THE PLOT WAS 4000 SQ. MTRS. ONLY, ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD DEVELOPED EDEN GARDEN PROJECT. FURTHER, THE GROSS AREA OF THE PLOT AS PER LAYOUT SANCTIONED BY THE PCMC WAS 4000 SQ. MTR., THEREFORE, IT WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE THAT THE ORIGINAL AREA OF THE PLOT WAS 50 00 SQ. MTRS. AND 1000 SQ. MTRS. OF LAND WAS TAKEN BY PCMC FOR GARDEN PURPOSE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT PLOT AREA OF THE PROJECT AS PER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND AS PER LAYOUT SANCTIONED BY PCMC WAS ONLY 4000 SQ. MTRS., WHICH WAS BELOW ONE ACRE. THE SECOND CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT EARLIER AREA WAS MEASURED AS HECTARE S AND ARE AND THE PRECISION OF MEASUREMENT IN AREA UP TO 2 DIGITS, WAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDER SECTION 80IB(10)(B) OF THE ACT, THE PROJECT IS ON SI ZE OF PLOT WHICH HAS A MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS, HELD AS UNDER: - 7. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR THE REASONS THAT, SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE I.T. ACT , 1961 SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THE WORD ACRE. THE SECTION 80IB(10)(B) READS AS UNDER: THE PROJECT IS ONE THE SIZE OF LAND WHICH HAS A MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE. THE VALUATION OFFICER, WHO IS A AUTHORITY IN THIS MATTER, SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE GROSS AREA OF THE PLOT AS PER THE LAYOUT SANC TIONED BY THE PCMC IS 4000 SQ. MTR. THE PLOT AREA IS LESS THAN ONE ACRE. THEREFORE AREA OF PLOT OF 4000 SQ. MTR. IS CANNOT BE EQUAL TO 1 ACRE, IT IS BELOW THE 1 ACRE ONLY. THE AREA OF 1 ACRE IS EQUIVALENT TO 4048 SQ. MTR. AND THE SIZE OF THE ASSESSEES PLOT OF LAND IS 4000 SQ. MTR. ONLY WHICH IS CLEARLY BELOW 1 ACRE. 5. IN RESPECT OF TWIN BUNGALOW NO.1 ALSO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE MAXIMUM BUILT UP AREA OF THE SAID BUNGALOW WAS EXCEEDING 1500 SQ. FT . , HENCE, ON BOTH THESE COUNTS , THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WAS REJECTED. ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 5 6. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION S BEFORE THE CIT(A) WERE THE SAME AS THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF STANDARDS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1956 , EVERY UNIT OF WEIGHT OR MEASURE HAD TO BE BASED ON UNITS OF THE METRIC SYSTEM AND PRIMARY UNIT OF AREA SHALL BE THE SQUARE METER. FURTHER, UNDER SECTION 80(1) OF THAT ACT, NO UNIT OF WEIGHT, MEASURE, NUMERATION, AFTER TH E COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACT, SHALL BE STATED IN ANY UNIT OTHER THAN THE STANDARD UNIT OF WEIGHT, MEASURE OR NUMERATION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CONVERSION OF ONE ACRE TO METRIC SYSTEM WORKS OUT TO 0.4046 HA. AND UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF ROUNDING OF F, THE SAME HAS TO BE ROUNDED OFF TO 0.40 HA., WHICH IS EQU A L TO 4000 SQ. MTRS. THE PRECI SION OF MEASUREMENT AS PER THE ASSESSEE, HAD TO BE CONSIDERED UP TO TWO DECIMAL PLACES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE ISSUE WAS DEBATABLE, AND IN INTERPRETING INCENTIVE PROVISION, A LIBERAL VIEW HAD TO BE ADOPTED. FURTHER, SUBMISSIONS WERE ALSO M ADE WITH REGARD TO THE BUILT UP AREA OF ROW HOUSE NO.1, WHICH WE SHALL CONSIDER AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. 7. THE CIT(A) REFERRING TO VARIOUS DECIS IONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT WHEN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE CONSIDERED IN LIGHT OF THE RATIO OF CASES CITED BY THE ASSESSEE, NO SUPPORT COULD BE DRAWN FROM THE SAID JUDGMENTS AS THE CONNOTATION THAT THE AREA OF LAND BEFORE THE ASS ESSEE ACQUIRED THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP, THE SAME WAS MORE THAN ONE ACRE WAS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE, HENCE, THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED . THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BASED ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STANDARDS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES A CT, 1956 , ON THE BASIS OF WHICH, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT 4000 SQ. MTRS., UPON ROUNDING OFF WOULD CONSTITUTE ONE ACRE. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE SAID ACT HAD BEEN REPEALED BY STANDARDS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1976 , UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE SAI D ACT, EVERY ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 6 UNIT OF WEIGHT OR MEASURE SHALL BE BASED ON THE UNITS OF METRIC SYSTEM. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT UNDISPUTEDLY, THE METRIC UNIT OF AREA IS HECTARE AND NOT ACRE. HOWEVER, THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS WISDOM HAS SPECIFIED THE MINIMUM AREA OF PLOT OF LAND AS ONE ACRE UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OPTION BUT TO GIV E FULL EFFECT TO THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE LAW. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT WAS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ONE ACRE OF LAND EQUALS 4046.9 SQ. MTRS. AND NOT 4000 SQ. MTRS. , WHICH WAS THE SIZE OF PLOT OF LAND IN ASSESSEES CASE. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) ON PERUSAL OF THE ACT, 1976 OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO SUPPORT FOR THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE AREA OF PLOT MUST BE ROU NDED OFF TO NEAREST SECOND DECIMAL PLACE , YIELDING, IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, 4000 SQ. MTRS., AS TH E METRIC CONVERSION OF ONE ACRE. FURTHER, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN MD ASSOCIATES , WHICH WAS REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE TRIBUNAL TOO HAD MENTIONED IN PARA 4 OF THAT JUDGMENT THAT ONE ACRE OF LAND EQUALS TO 4046.9 SQ. MTRS. THE CIT(A) FURTHER ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE OF SIZE OF ROW HOUSES AND THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN THIS REG ARD AND DENIED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON BOTH COUNTS. 8 . THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) . 9 . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE ORDERS OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (A) AND POINTED OUT THAT WHERE THE SECTION HAD USED THE TERM ONE ACRE , WHICH AS PER THE STUDY IS 40 ARE, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO 4000 SQ. MTRS., THEN THE SAME HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS ONE ACRE. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE LETTER FILED BY THE REVENUE AL ONG WITH PLAN DATED 05.12.2012 , IN WHICH PCNTDA HAS MENTIONED 4000 SQ. MTRS. IN LEASE DEED. ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 7 FURTHER, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN LEASE DEED, THERE WAS NO MENTION OF ONE ACRE, BUT THERE WAS MENTION OF 2500 + 1 500 P. C . AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT I.E. 4000 SQ. MTRS. FURTHER, THE LEASE DEED OF THE LAND TALKS OF 4000 SQ. MTR. AND EVEN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TALKS OF 4000 SQ. MTRS. AND IN BOTH THESE AGREEMENTS, THERE WAS NO MENTION OF ONE ACRE . I N THE P LAN PASSED FOR DEVELOPMENT AL SO, MENTION WAS 4000 SQ. MTRS. FURTHER, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE BUILDING PLAN RULES AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT 10% OPEN SPACE AND 15% SPACE FOR AMENITIES HAD TO BE LEFT FOR ONE ACRE AND ABOVE PLOTS AND NO AMENITIES SPACE FOR LESS THAN ON E ACRE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD LEFT NO SPACE FOR AMENITIES WHILE DEVELOPING ITS PLOT. AGAIN REFERENCE WAS MADE TO STANDARDS O F WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IT R EFERS TO METERS, WHEREAS SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT TALKS OF ONE ACRE. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS WHETHER 4000 SQ. MTRS. WAS ONE ACRE. HE STRESSED THAT THE CONNOTATION FOR ONE ACRE IS UNDERSTOOD POPULARLY WAS 4000 SQ. MTRS. AND EVEN THE PLANS APPROVED BY PCMC TALKS OF 4000 SQ. MTRS. OR ONE ACRE. HE FURTHER, STATED THAT PCMC APPLIES THE DC RULES OF PCNTDA . WHILE SUMMARIZING THE ISSUE, THE LEARNED AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ONE ACRE WAS NOT DEFINED IN THE ACT AND IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD BY POPULAR CONNOTATION. FURTHER, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IN INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, LIBERAL INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE GIVEN AS HELD IN BAJAJ TEMPO VS. CIT REPORTED IN 196 ITR 188 (SC) . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CONNOTATION ONE ACRE WAS UNDE RSTOOD DIFFERENTLY IN DIFFERENT STATES AND 7 / 12 EXTRACT OF THE PRESENT PLOT OF LAND REFERRED TO GUNTAS. HE FURTHER STRESSED THAT ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 8 WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE, THEN THE VIEW WHICH IS FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE APPLIED. REFER ENCE WAS MADE TO THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN CI T VS. VANDANA PROPERTIES (2013) IN 353 ITR 36 (BOM) , WHEREIN THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT ON ONE ACRE OF PLOT , TWO PROJECTS WERE POSSIBLE. FURTHER, RELIANCE WAS P LACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN CONSOLIDATED ORDER WITH LEAD ORDER IN M/S. BABA PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS VS. ITO IN ITA NO.629/PN/2009, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05, ORDER DATED 29.02.2012 . FURTHER, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO BUILT UP AREA OF ROW HOUSE AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO AN ALTERNATE PLEA OF PRORATA DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 10 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE HAS PLACED ON RECORD WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND POINTED OUT THAT THE REPORT RE FERRED TO BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE WITH THE PURPOSE TO MAKE DATA BASE OF LAND RECORDS, WHICH ASSESSEE WAS MADE WITH THE PURPOSE TO MAKE DATA BASE OF LAND RECORDS, WHICH NOWHERE DEFINES ACRE, HENCE, RELIANCE ON THE SAID REPORT WAS NOT WARRANTED. FURTHER, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE SAID REPORT IN PARA 2.7.3 AT PAGE 52 AND IT WAS POI NTED OUT THAT IN THE ST ATE OF JHARKHAND, ONE ACRE WAS 4046.94 SQ. MTRS. AND THE SAID REPORT DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND HENCE, THE RELIANCE ON THE REPORT WAS MIS - PLACED. FURTHER, RELIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON STANDARDS O F WEIGHT S AND MEASURES ACT, WAS ALSO FOUND TO BE NOT CORRECT BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE AS THE S AME WAS REGULATING TRADE OR COMMERCE AND NOT FOR MEASURING PLOTS. HE FURTHER ADMITT E D THAT T HERE WAS NO DEFINITION UNDER THE INCOME - TAX ACT. THOUGH, IN THE PLANS, IT WAS WRITTEN AS ONE ACRE, BUT T HESE WERE AS PER THE ASSESSEE , IT MEANS THAT ONE ACRE IS 4000 SQ. MTRS. THOUGH IN THE LEASE DEED, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, REGISTERED PLANS, THE AREA WAS MENTIONED AS 4000 ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 9 SQ. MTRS. AND NOWHERE I T WAS MENTIONED AS ONE ACRE. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE VALUATION REPORT AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT HE HA D CONSIDERED THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA. HE STRESSED THAT VALUATION REPORT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER, WHO WAS TECHNICAL EXP E RT AND HE HAD MADE CLEAR IN THE SAID REPORT THAT THE PLOT UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS LESS THAN ONE ACRE. FURTHER, THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA , NOWHERE DEFINED ONE ACRE A S EQUIVALENT TO 4000 SQ. MTRS. FURTHER, REFERENCE W AS MADE TO OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT , WHERE ONE ACRE HAS BEEN TAKEN AS 4067.23 SQ. MTRS. AS PER LANDSOFMAHARASHTRA.COM , THE INTERNATIONAL ACRE AS DEFINED IN 1958 WAS EXACTLY 4,046.8564224 SQ.MTRS. EVEN AS PER WIKIPEDIA, ONE ACRE WAS 4046.856 SQ. MTRS. EVEN AS PER O XFORD DICTIONARY, AN ACRE WAS DEFINED AS UNIT FOR MEASURING AN AREA OF LAND WHICH WAS EQUAL TO 4,840 SQ. YDS. OR ABOUT 4,050 SQ. MTRS. AS PER THE LETTER DATED 03.09.2014 RECEIVED FROM PCNTDA , IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT THE LAND WAS MEASURED BY THE PCNTDA IN SQ. MTRS. AND ACRE WAS NOT USED AS UNIT OF MEASUREMENT. FURTHER, EVEN IN THE APPROVED PLANS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE , THE GROSS AREA OF PLOT WAS MENTIONED AS 4000 SQ. MTRS. AND AFTER DEDUCTION FOR AMENITIES, NET AREA OF PLOT WAS TAKEN AS 3202.261 SQ. MTRS. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT ALL THE REFERENCES MADE WERE AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN AND COULD BE UTILIZED FOR THIS PURPOSE. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT HOW THE RELIEF CAN BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR IGNORANCE OF LAW AND HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE POPULAR CONNOTATION WAS TO BE APPLIED , ONLY IF INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE CASE LAWS WERE DEALT BY THE CIT(A) AND IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY AMENITIES AND IN CASE THE PLOT AREA WAS ONE ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 10 ACRE OR MORE, THEN HE WAS BOUND TO PROVIDE AREA FOR AMENITIES. FURTHER SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE WITH RESP ECT TO BUILT UP AREA OF ROW HOUSE NO.1. 1 1 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US IS WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE SAID SECTION LAYS DOWN CERTAIN CONDITIONS, WHICH HAVE TO BE FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHILE CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. ONE SUCH CONDITION IS CLAUSE (B) IN THE SAID SECTION, UNDER WHICH IT IS STIPULATED THAT THE PROJECT ON THE SIZE OF PLOT OF LA ND WHICH HAS A MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE. THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 80IB(10) (B) OF THE ACT IS TO DEVELOP AND CONSTRUCT THE HOUSING PROJECT ON A PLOT AREA WHICH HAS MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB( 10) OF THE ACT, AFTER SATISFYING ALL THE OTHER CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN OTHER SUB - SECTIONS TO THE SAID SECTION. THE AREA OF ONE ACRE IS QUALIFIED WITH THE WORD MINIMUM AND WHILE APPLYING THE SAID CONDITION , QUALIFIED WITH THE WORD MINIMUM AND WHILE APPLYING THE SAID CONDITION , PROVISION OF THE STATUTE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED I N ENTIRETY. 1 2 . THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. VANDANA PROPERTIES (SUPRA) WHILE INTERPRETING THE EXPRESSION HOUSING PROJECT NOTED THAT THE EXPRESSION HOUSING PROJECT WAS NEITHER DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE ACT NOR UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) O F THE ACT. EVEN UNDER THE MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1998 AS ALSO UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REGULATIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI, 1991, THE EXPRESSION HOUSING PROJECT WAS NOT DEFINED. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD THAT T HEREFORE, THE EXP RESS ION HOUSING PROJECT IN SECTION 80IB(10) WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED AS COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD. THE EXPRESSION HOUSING PROJECT IN COMMON PARLANCE WOULD MEAN CONSTRUCTING A BUILDING OR GROUP OF BUILDINGS CONSISTING OF SEVERAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND FURTHER ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 11 H ELD THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF EVEN ONE BUILDING WITH SEVERAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS OF THE SIZE NOT EXCEEDING 1000 SQ. FT WOULD CONSTITUTE A HOUSING PROJECT UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. ANOTHER CONDITION NOTED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS MOREOVER, A P LAIN READING OF SECTION 80IB(10) DOES NOT EVEN REMOTELY SUGGEST THAT THE PLOT OF LAND HAVING MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE MUST BE VACANT. THE SECTION ALLOWS DEDUCTION TO A HOUSING PROJECT ( SUBJECT TO FULFILLING ALL OTHER CONDITIONS ) CONSTRUCTED ON A PLOT OF L AND HAVING MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE AND IT IS IMMATERIAL AS TO WHETHER OR NOT ANY OTHER HOUSING PROJECTS ARE EXISTING ON THE PLOT OF LAND. THE CONDITION OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT ON A PLOT OF LAND HAVING MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND APPLYING THE SAID RATIO, FOR ANY ASSESSEE TO AVAIL THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT , ONE OF THE CONDITIONS TO BE FULFILLED IS THAT PLOT OF LAND SHOULD HAVE A MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE . UNDOUBTEDLY, THE OBJECT OF GRANTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT EQUAL TO 100% OF THE PROFITS OF AN UNDERTAKING, ARISING FROM DEVELOPING AND CONSTRUCTING A HOUSING PROJECT IS , WITH A VIEW TO BOOST THE STOCK OF HOUSES FOR LOWER AND MIDDLE INCOME GROUPS, SUBJECT TO FU LF ILLING THE SPECIFIED CONDITIONS, WAS ALSO THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH CO URT. APPLYING THE SAID RATIO, WE HOLD THAT IN ORDER TO AVAIL THE DEDUCTION EQUIVALENT TO 100% ON PROFITS OF AN UNDERTAKING, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN DEVELOPMENT AND CO NSTRUCTION OF A HOUSING PROJECT, THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT HAVE TO BE FULFILLED. THE AIM OF INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WAS TO BOOST STOCK OF HOUSES FOR LOWER AND MIDDLE INCOME GROUP AND WHERE ANY ENACTMENT SP ECIFIE S CERTAIN CONDITIONS, THEN THE CONDITIONS LAID THEREIN, HAVE TO BE FULFILLED. 1 3 . THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS THE CONNOTATION OF MEANING OF ONE ACRE I.E. THE SIZE OF PLOT OF LAND ON WHICH THE HOUSING PROJECT HAS TO BE DEVELOPED IN ORDER TO ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 12 AVAIL THE DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. AS PER CLAUSE (B) TO SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PLOT OF LAND SHOULD HAVE A MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE, WHICH IN OTHER TERMS, MEAN THAT WHERE A PERSON DOES NOT FULFILL THE CONDITIONS OF TH E PLOT OF LAND HAVING MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE, THEN THE PROFITS OF SAID UNDERTAKING ARISING FROM DEVELOPING AND CONSTRUCTING SUCH A HOUSING PROJECT, IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 1 4 . IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, PCNTDA HAD LEASED OUT THE LAND TO SH RI RC PATEL VIDE AGREEMENT OF LEASE EXECUTED ON 02.03.1991 . THE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 25 TO 32 ALONG WITH COPY OF PLAN ANNEXED TO THE LEASE DEED AT PAGE 33 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE PERUSAL OF LEASE DEED REFLECTS THAT IN CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE LESSEE AND LESSOR ON PREMIUM, THE AREA OF LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT WHICH WAS HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE WAS 2500 + 1500 P. C AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT IN HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE WAS 2500 + 1500 P. C AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT IN VILLAGE LIMITS OF RAV ET, HAVELI, DISTRICT PUNE. THE LEASE DEED CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT THE AREA UNDER CONSIDERATION IS 4000 SQ. MTRS. OR THEREABOUTS. THE OWNER ENTERED INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THE TERM OF 99 YEARS STARTING FROM MARCH, 1991 AND PREMIUM CHARGED WAS FOR LAND ARE A OF 4000 SQ. MTRS. THE LAYOUT PLAN OF THE LAND PROPOSED TO BE SOLD TO THE ASSESSEE IS ANNEXED TO THE LEASE DEED, IN WHICH ALSO, THERE IS MENTION OF 4000 SQ. MTRS. I.E. 2500 + 1500 AND THOUGH IN DEVANAGARI , THERE IS MENTION OF ONE ACRE ON THE SAID PLAN. T HE OWNER OF THE SAID PLOT HAD ENTERED INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE EXECUTED ON 16.07.1997 . THE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS PLACED A T PAGES 37 TO 59 AND AT PAGE 60 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS THE LAYOUT PLAN . THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT R EFERS TO THE PLOT OF LAND ADMEASURING 4000 SQ. MTRS., AND THE PLAN REFERS TO 4000 SQ. MTRS. AND THE PLAN ANNEXED AT PAGE 60 OF THE ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 13 PAPER BOOK IS THE SAME LAYOUT PLAN AS WAS ISSUED BY PCMC WITH THE SAME MENTION AS REFERRED TO BY US IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF SANCTIONED PLANS FOR THE HOUSING PROJECTS IN WHICH THE AREA STATEMENT SHOWS THE AREA OF PLOT TO BE 4000 SQ. MTRS. AND AFTER DEDUCTION OF 10% FOR OPEN SPACE AND PORTION FOR INTERNAL ROADS, TOTALING 797.73 9 SQ. MTRS., THE NET AREA OF PLOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS 3202.261 SQ. MTRS. IN THE SAID PLAN ITSELF, IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE PERMISSIBLE RESIDENTIAL FSI & FLOOR SPACE (7X8) WOULD 3202.261 SQ. MTRS. AND THE TOTAL RESIDENTIAL FSI AND FLOOR SPACE PR OPOSED WAS 3063.105 SQ. MTRS. I.E. CONSUMPTION OF FAR OF 95.654% . 1 5 . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT UNDISPUTEDLY, THE AREA OF THE PLOT IS 4000 SQ. MTRS. IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND ALSO IS THE START POINT FOR AREA CALCUL ATION IN THE SANCTIONED PLAN. HOWEVER, THE PLAN ACCOMPANYING IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT REFERS TO THE PLOT AS 4000 SQ. MTRS. PLAN ACCOMPANYING IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT REFERS TO THE PLOT AS 4000 SQ. MTRS. SUFFIXED BY ONE ACRE. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD CONTENDS THAT IMPLIEDLY THE LESSOR OF THE PLOT REFERS TO 4000 SQ. MTRS. AS ONE ACRE . THE LESSOR OF THE PLOT IN THIS CASE WAS PCNTDA. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED BEFORE US A SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, WHICH READS AS UNDER: - SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS A . ON THE PLOT AREA 1 . IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE AREA OF THE PLOT IS SAID TO BE 4000SQ. MTS. IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND IS THE START POINT FOR AREA CALCULATION IN THE SANCTIONED PLAN. 2 . WHAT IS DISPUTED IS THE CONNOTATION OF ONE ACRE AS FOUND IN SECTION 80IB(0). IN THIS REGARD, WE HAVE TO CONTE ND AS UNDER: A ) THE PLAN ACCOMPANYING THE LEASE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REFERS TO THE PLOT AS 4000 SQ METER SUFFIXED BY (ONE ACRE). IMPLIEDLY, THE LESSOR OF THE PLOT ALSO REFERS TO 4000 SQ METER AS ONE ACRE. ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 14 B ) THE REPORT FROM THE A O ONLY BRINGS HOME THAT THE PLOT LEASED OUT IS DEFINED AS 4000 SQ METER IN THE AGREEMENT. IT REMAINS SILENT ON THE NOTINGS ON THE PLAN. C ) THE CONCEPT OF ACRE IS UNDERSTOOD DIFFERENTLY IN DIFFERENT STATES IN THE COUNTRY AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED AT T HE BEHEST OF THE MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.( SEE PAGES 50 &51 OF THE REPORT) D ) 'ACRE' IS NOT DEFINED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THEREFORE SHALL HAVE TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS IS POPULARLY/CONVENTIONALLY UNDERSTOOD AS HELD BY THE HON. SC I N NUMEROUS DECISIONS INCLUDING VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEM LTD. VS. CIT 289 ITR 83(SC) AND M.N.DASTUR & CO. VS. UNION OF INDIA. 279 ITR 147 (CAL) E ) THE CONCEPT OF ACRE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED HISTORICALLY AT PAGES 6 TO 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT ALSO POINTS OUT THAT WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THE STANDARD OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT WAY BACK IN 1956, THE UNIT OF MEASUREMENT OF AREA IS SQ METER AND THAT NO OTHER USAGE IS PERMITTED. IN SPITE OF THIS PROPOSITION, THE ACT USES ACRE INSTEAD OF SQ. MTR. F ) IF A STATUTE CONTAINS LAC UNAE, THE COURT CANNOT PLUG IT BY A STRAINED CONSTRUCTION IN PREFERENCE TO A SUPPOSED INTENTION.(CIT V VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. (88 ITR 192.) G ) AS 'ACRE' IS UNDERSTOOD DIFFERENTLY IN DIFFERENT STATES, A UNIFORM INTERPRETATION IS NECESSARY THROUGHOUT THE COU NTRY IN READING A CENTRAL STATUTE. A DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE WOULD BE VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION. H ) IF TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, A VIEW FAVOURABLE SHOULD BE TAKEN (CIT V KULU VALLEY TRANSPORT 77 ITR 518.) I ) IF TWO VIEW S ARE POSSIBLE DUE TO LOOSENESS OF DRAFTING, A VIEW ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TAKEN.(BHARAT COTTAGE INDUSTRY V UNION OF INDIA 1992 59 ELT 30) J ) SECTION 80IB(10) IS AN INCENTIVE PROVISION GRANTING BENEFITS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE SHOULD B E LIBERALLY INTERPRETED.( BAJAJ TEMPO V CIT 196 ITR 188) K ) ANNEXURE 1 (PAGE 2), ANNEXURE 2 (PAGE 4) AND ANNEXURE 3 (PAGE 8) OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILLED BY THE REVENUE CONCEDE THE FACT THAT AN ACRE IS ALSO UNDERSTOOD AS 4000 SQ MTR. BY POINTING OUT TH AT 1 HECTARE IS 2.5 ACRES AND 1 HECTARE IS 10,000 SQ MTRS. 3 . THE LESSOR IS THE PRIME DEVELOPER OF THE AREA UNDER PCNTDA WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE PCMC WHOSE DC RULES APPLY TO ALL DEVELOPMENTS THEREIN. ACCORDINGLY, THE AMENITY SPACES AT 15% HAVE TO BE CARVED OUT BESIDES OTHER REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS DONE BY THE LESSOR AND THE NET AREA OF 4000 SQ METERS IS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. SUCH ADDITIONAL AREAS HAVE BEEN INDICATED IN THE LEASE DEED AT PAGE 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK BY STA TING AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT (VIZ ROADS PLUS O.S. ETC). THE AREA UNDER AMENITY SPACES HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS A PART OF PLOT AREA IN NUMEROUS DECISIONS OF THE HON. TRIBUNAL LED BY THE DECISION IN BUNTY BUILDERS V ITO(56 DTR). ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 15 B . ON THE BUILT UP AREA 1 . THE PLAN HAS BEEN SANCTIONED ON 27.11.2003. THE DEFINITION OF BUILT UP AREA HAS BEEN BROUGHT BY FINANCE ACT, 2004 W.E.F. 01.04.2005. 2 . FOR THE PLANS SANCTIONED PRIOR TO 01.04.2005, BUILT UP AREA HAS TO SEEN AS UNDERSTOOD AS BY THE SANCTIONING AUTHORITY AS HELD IN DS KULKARNI DEVELOPERS LTD (PAGE 38 OF CASE LAW COMPILATION) AND GK BUILDERS (PAGE 79 OF CASE LAW COMPILATION). AS PER THE PLANS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE BUILT .UP AREA OF ROW HOUSE NO. 1 IS 138.61 SQ. MTS. 3 . THE AMENDED DEFINITION DOES NOT APPLY TO PLANS APPROVED TO 1.4.2005 AS HELD BY SUPREME COURT IN SARKAR BUILDERS 119 DTR 241. 1 6 . THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN COUNTERED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE, WHO IN TURN, HAS FILED THE SUBMISSIONS AND HAS OBJECTED TO T HE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHICH READS AS UNDER: - WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF VIRAG DESHPANDE DEVELOPERS ITA NO.932/PN/11 FOR A.Y.2006 - 2007 PLEASE REFER TO SUBMISSION FILED BY DEP ARTMENT ON 5/11/2014 AND 6/01/2015 (LETTER DATED 05/12/2014). IN CONTINUATION TO THE ABOVE AND IN RESPONSE TO THE DETAILED SUBMISSION MADE BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT ON 02/12/2015 TO MAKE HIS POINT THAT 1 ACRE SHOULD BE TAKEN AS 4 000 SQ.METERS INSTEAD OF 4046.9 SQ.MTRS AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U / S 80 I B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, FOLLOWING SUBMISSION MAY BE TAKEN ON RECORD. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THE AR MAINLY RELIED UPON FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS / SUBMIS SION WHICH IS DEALT WITH AS UNDER: 1 . REPORT ON STUDY OF UNIFORM CODING SCHEME FOR COMPUTERISATION OF LAND RECORDS (FILED BY THE AR ON 13/08/2014): THE AR HAS RELIED ON PARA 2.7 (PAGE 50 - 52) OF THE REPORT TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM THAT 1 ACRE = 4000MTRS. THIS REPORT DOES NOT FURTHER THE CAUSE OF ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: A ) THIS IS PURELY A REPORT MADE ON THE BASIS OF STUDY CONDUCTED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE AS MENTIONED AT PARA 1.3, PAGE N O .1 0 OF THE REPORT WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE: ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 16 '1. FORMULATION OF LIST OF LAND ATTRIBUTES / FIELDS FOR FACILITATING CREATION, OF DATA WAREHOUSE AND DATA MINING AT STATE AND NATIONAL LEVEL. 2 . EXTRACTION OF MEANINGFUL INFORMATION THROUGH LAND RECORDS DATABASES AS AVAILABLE IN DIFFERENT STATES. 3 . INTEROPE RABILITY OF THE LAND RECORDS DATA WITH OTHER NATIONAL LEVEL DATABASES LIKE CENSUS/BELOW POVERTY LINE (BPL) AND AGRICULTURE CENSUS. 4 . FORMATION OF A NATIONAL LEVEL DATA REPOSITORY WITH UNIFORMITY ACROSS THE STATES. ' AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE OBJECT OF THIS REPORT IS TO GATHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE LAND RECORDS OF VARIOUS STATES AND STANDARDIZE THE SAME FOR MAKING A UNIFORM DATA BASE FOR THE COUNTRY. IT NEITHER DEFINES THE UNIT OF MEASUREMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. ACRE NOR CHALLENGES THE DE FINITION OF ACRE BEING USED IN DIFFERENT STATES OF THE COUNTRY. B ) THE PARA 2.7.1 OF THE REPORT RELIED UPON BY THE AR BASICALLY CONTAINS A RECOMMENDATION TO HAVE THE AREA OF LAND ONLY IN METRIC UNITS AND PARA 2.7.3 DEPICTS THE VARIOUS AREA UNITS IN PRACTICE IN LAND RECORDS IN VARIOUS STATES. THE AR HAS SIMPLY RELIED ON THAT CONVERSION FACTOR WHICH SUITS THE ASSESSEE AND DISREGARDED THE CONVERSION FACTOR OF 1 ACRE=4046.94 SQ.MTRS AS APPLICABLE IN THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND AS MENTIONED AT LINE NO.4 OF PAGE NO . 52 OF THIS REPORT. SUCH PARTIAL AND OUT OF CONTEXT RELIANCE ON THE REPORT CANNOT BE AND SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE HON'BLE COURT. C ) THOUGH THE REPORT MENTION ABOUT VARIOUS AREA UNITS IN PRACTICE AND LAND RECORD OF VARIOUS STATES BUT DOES NOT FIND MEN TION OF THE UNITS/CONVERSION FACTORS PREVALENT IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. HENCE THIS REPORT IS OF NO RELEVANCE FOR THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE AR ON THIS REPORT IS TOTALLY MISPLACED AND THEREFORE NEED N OT BE CONSIDERED. 2. THE STANDARDS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT. 1976 : THE AR HAS FURTHER TAKEN SUPPORT OF THIS ACT TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM. IT WAS STATED BY HIM THAT THE INCOME - TAX ACT HAS WRONGLY MENTIONED THE WORD 'ACRE' INSTEAD OF SQ.MTRS IN SECTION 80 IB . THIS ARGUMENT IS DEVOID OF ANY MERITS FOR THE FOLLOWING REA S ONS: A) IN THIS REGARD IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE OBJECT OF THIS THE STANDARDS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1976 IS VERY CLEAR I.E. 'TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASU RES , TO RE GULATE TRADE OR COMMERCE IN W EIGHTS, MEASURES A ND O THER GOODS WHICH ARE SOLD OR DISTRIBUTED BY WEIGHT, MEASURE OR NUMBER, TO PROVIDE FOR MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH OR INCIDENTAL THERETO'. THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT INDICATES THAT THIS ACT IS OF LEAST RE LEVANCE FOR THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE, ANY RELIANCE PLACED ON THIS ACT WOULD BE TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT. ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 17 B) UNIT OF 'ACRE' HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED IN EITHER THE INCOME - TAX ACT OR THE STANDARDS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1976. BUT AT THE SA ME TIME IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ACRE HAS BEEN DEFINED NOT ONLY IN DICTIONARY BUT ALSO ITS DEFINITION IS AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN. HENCE AS PER THE GENERAL RULES OF INTERPRETATION, THE WORD 'ACRE' USED IN SECTION 80LB HAS TO BE DERIVED MEANING FROM THE EXTERNAL AIDS OF INTERPRETATION AND THE DISCUSSION IN PARA 3 BELOW WHEREIN VARIOUS SOURCES HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON HAS MADE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT 1 ACRE = 4046.856 SQ.MTRS AND THERE IS NO SCOPE OF AMBIGUITY. HENCE ON THIS COUNT ALSO THE ARGUMENT OF THE A SSESSEE NEEDS TO BE SQU ARELY REJECTED. 3. LAYOUT PLAN OF THE LAND UNDER CONSIDERATION : IN THE LAYOUT PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE AR AT PAGE N O .33 OF THE PAPER BOOK DATED 14/08/2014, THERE IS MENTION OF 4000 SQ.MTRS AS WELL AS '1 ACRE' WRITTEN IN DEVNAGRI. THE AR IS SIM PLY RELYING ON THE WORDS WRITTEN IN DEVNAGRI TO JUSTIFY THE DEFINITION OF 1 ACRE A S 4000 SQ.MTRS BECAUSE IT SUITS THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS THE DOCU MENT NOWHERE MENTIONS THAT 1 ACRE = 4000 SQ.MTRS. THIS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DEVOID OF MERI TS AND FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FOLLOWING FACTUAL DISCUSSION: A) IN THE LEASE DEED (PAGE 25 - 32 OF THE PAPER BOOK DATED 14/08/2014) EXECUTED ON 02/03/1991 BETWEEN PCNTD AND SHRI RC PATEL THE AREA OF PLOT UNDER CONSIDERATION IS MENTIONED AS 4000 SQ.MTRS. EVEN IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 16/07/1997 (PAGE 37 - 59 OF THE PAPER BOOK DATED 14/08/2014) THE AREA OF PLOT UNDER CONSIDERATION IS MENTIONED AS 4000 SQ.MTRS. THESE DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT SINCE BEGINN ING THE SIZE OF THE PLOT WAS MENTIONED AS 4000 SQ.MTRS IN ALL THE LEGAL OF THE PLOT WAS MENTIONED AS 4000 SQ.MTRS IN ALL THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS. IT NOWHERE SAYS OR INDICATE THAT 1 ACRE=4000 SQ.MTRS. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT DISREGARD THESE LEGALLY EXECUTED DOCUMENTS TO PRESENT A DISTORTED DEFINITION OF AN ACRE AND THAT TO O PURELY ON THE BASIS OF A WORD WRITTEN ON THE LAYOUT PLAN. B) THE VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER , WHO IS A TECHNICAL EXPERT ON THE SUBJECT ALSO MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE PLOT UNDER CONSIDERATION IS LESS THAN 1 ACRE. C) THE GOVERNM ENT OF MAHARASHTRA NOWHERE DEFINES AN ACRE IS EQUAL TO 4000 SQ.MTRS. D) AS PER THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 1 ACRE HAS BEEN TAKEN AS 4067.23 SQ.METRES. THE DOCUMENT DOWN LOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IS ENCLOSED AS AN NEXURE I (PAGE 1 - 3 ). E) AS PER LANDSOFMAHARASHTRA.COM, THE INTERNATIONAL ACRE AS DEFI N ED IN 1958 IS EXACTLY 4,046.8564224SQ.MTRS. THE COPY OF PRINTOUT TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE IS ENCLOSED AS AN ANNEXURE - II (PAGE4 - 5) . F) EVEN AS PER WIKIPEDIA 1 ACRE = 404 6.856 SQ.MTRS. THE PRINT OUT OF THE DEFINITION TAKEN FROM THE WIKIPEDIA IS ENCLOSED AS AN ANNEXURE - III (PAGE 6 - 9) ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 18 G) EVEN AS PER OXFORD DICTIONARY AN ACRE IS DEFINED AS A UNIT FOR MEASURING AN AREA OF LAND WHICH IS EQUAL TO 4840 SQUARE YARDS OR ABOUT 4050 SQUARE METRES ( HTTP://WWW.OXFORDDICTIONARIES.COM/DEFINITION/LEARNER/ACRE ). ( HTTP://WWW.OXFORDDICTIONARIES.COM/DEFINITION/LEARNER/ACRE ). H) ALSO, AS PER THE LETTER DATED 03/09/2014 RECEIVED FROM PCNTDA (PAGE 12 - 14 OF PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY T HE DEPARTME N T ON 05/11/2014) IT IS CLARIFIED THAT THE LAND IS MEASURED BY THE PCNTDA IN SQ.MTRS AND ACRE IS NOT USED AS UNIT OF MEASUREMENT. I) EVEN IN THE APPROVED PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE AR IN THE COURT ON 02/12/2015 THE GROSS AREA OF PLOT IS MENTIONED AS 4000 SQ.MTRS AND AFTER DEDUCTION FOR AMENITIES, ETC. THE NET AREA OF PLOT IS TAKEN AS 202.261SQ.MTRS J) EVEN THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DISTINGUISHED IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND THEREFORE, THESE CASE LAW S ARE OF NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEE. THESE CASE LAW S ARE OF NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THIS SCENARIO I.E. THE REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICER, REGISTERED LEGAL DOCUMENT IN THE FORM OF LEASE AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY ASSESSEE, LETTER OF PCNTDA CLARIFYING THE FACT THAT THEY ARE MEA SURING THE LAND IN SQ.MTRS AND NOT IN ACRES, UNITS OF LAND MEASUREMENTS AS PER THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THE DEFINITION AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN, ETC. IT WOULD BE TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED IF ANY RELIANCE IS PLACED ON A SINGLE WORD MENTIONED ON A PLAN AND THAT TO O DOES NOT SAY THAT 1 ACRE = 4000 SQ.MTRS. RATHER THE DOCUMENT BOLDLY MENTION THAT THE AREA OF PLOT IS 4000 SQ.MTRS AND WHICH IS FURTHER CLARIFIED BY WAY OF LETTER DATED 03/09/2014 OF THE APPROVING AUTHORITY I.E. P CNTDA . IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES I.E. WHEN TH ERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN UNDERSTANDING THE MEANING OF A WORD AND SUFFICIENT FACTS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ARE AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN AS WELL AS IN THE RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT WHICH HAS MADE THE CASE CRYSTAL CLEAR, IT WOULD BE TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED TO I NTERPRET A WORD SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF SOMETHING WRITTEN ON A PIECE OF DOCUMENT OR TO ADD MEANING TO A SIMPLE WORD LIKE ACRE WHICH HAS NO SCOPE OF AMBIGUITY. HENCE THE ABOVE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO TOTALLY MISPLACED AND THEREFORE, NEEDS TO BE SQU ARELY REJECTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSION, IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSION, IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO/CIT(A) MAY BE SUSTAINED. 1 7 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PLAN ANNEXED REFERS TO THE PLOT SIZE AS ONE ACRE THOUGH THE LEASE DEED TALKS OF PLOT ADMEASURING 4000 SQ. MTRS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO FURNISH ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 19 REMAND REPORT AFTER EXAMINATIO N OF THE AFORESAID PLEA AND HE WAS ALSO FREE TO CARRY OUT SUCH ENQUIRIES AS HE MAY DEEM FIT AND THE REQUISITE REPORT WAS TO BE FURNISHED THROUGH THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBTAINED A MEASUREMEN T REPORT FROM PCNTDA ALONG WITH THE LAYOUT PLAN OF THE LAND IN WHICH IT WAS INTIMATED THAT THE LAND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY 4000 SQ. MTRS. THE COPY OF THE SAID REPORT IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THEREAFTER, PAPER BOOK WAS FILED BY THE REVENUE AU THORITIES, IN WHICH THE CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL LEASE DEED DATED 02.03.1991 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE WAS ALSO FILED. FURTHER, IT WAS INTIMATED THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS REGISTERED WITH THE SUB - REGISTRAR, HAVELI NO.II , PUNE. THE PERUSAL OF COPY OF LEA SE DEED, REFLECTS THAT THE AREA ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO BE 2500 + 1 500 P.C. AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT IS EQUAL TO 4000 .0 SQ. MTRS. VIDE THE SAID LETTER, IT WAS ALSO INTIMATED THAT THE UNITS OF MEASUREMENT USED BY PCNTDA WERE IN SQ. MTRS., BUT IN THE DEMARC ATED AREA IN THE PLAN, BULK LAND WAS WRITTEN AS ONE ACRE, TWO ACRES AND THREE ACRES. FURTHER, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE LETTER OF PCNTDA DATED 03.09.2014 , UNDER WHICH, THEY HAVE REPLIED THAT THEY HAVE USED THE LAND MEASUREMENTS IN SQ. MTRS. ANOTHER COMMU NICATION WAS SENT TO PCNTDA TO ENQUIRE WHAT IS THE AREA ACRE EQUIVALENT OF SQ. MTRS. VALUED BY PCNTDA. IN REPLY, PCNTDA HAS STATED THAT THEY HAVE USED LAND MEASUREMENT IN SQ. MTRS. AND NOT IN ACRES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT THE MEASUR EMENT UNIT SHOWS THAT ONE ACRE IS EQUAL TO 4046.873 SQ. MTRS. AND WHERE THE ASSESSEES LAND WAS ONLY 4000 SQ. MTRS., WHICH WAS CERTIFIED BY PCNTDA VIDE LETTER DATED 03.09.2014 AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE PERUSAL OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE ESTABLISH THAT THE PLOT , WHICH WAS LEASED OUT BY PCNTDA AS PER THE AGREEMENT WAS ADMEASURING 4000 SQ. MTRS. HOWEVER, IN ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 20 THE LAYOUT PLAN ANNEXED TO THE LEASE DEED, THERE IS MENTION IN DEVNAGARI OF ONE ACRE AND HENCE, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT ONE ACRE SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD AS EQUIVALENT TO 4000 SQ. MTRS. 1 8 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US FOR ADJUDICATION IS THE MEASUREMENT OF ONE ACRE, WHICH IS THE UNIT MEASUREMENT SPECIFIED IN SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT THE SAME IS EQUAL TO 4000 SQ. MTRS. I.E. THE PLOT OF AREA, WHICH WAS DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE CASE OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US WAS THAT THE UNIT OF MEASUREMENT OF ONE ACRE IS EQUAL TO 4046.94 SQ. MTRS. WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY BY REFERRING TO VARIOUS REFERENCES MADE BY BOTH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. 19 . THE FIRST RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON REPORT OF STUDY OF UNIFORM CODING SCHEME F OR COMPUTERIZATION OF LAND RECORDS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PARA SCHEME F OR COMPUTERIZATION OF LAND RECORDS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PARA 2.7 AT PAGES 50 TO 52 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE PERUSAL OF THE TECHNICAL REPORT REFLECTS THAT NATIONAL INFORMAT ICS CENTRE, DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY , UNDER LAND RECORDS INFORMATION SYSTEM DIVISION HAD COMPILED THE SAID DATA FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTERIZATION OF LAND RECORDS. THE PERUSAL OF THE SAME IN PARA 1.3 REFLECTS THAT THE REPORT WAS FORMULATED TO GATHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE LAND RECORDS OF VARIOUS STATES IN ORDER TO STANDARDIZE UNIFORM DATA BASE IN THE COUNTRY. UNDER THE SAID SCHEME, THERE IS NO DEFINITION VIS - - VIS UNITS OF MEASUREMENTS NOR DE FINITION OF ACRE HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE SAID REPORT. IN THIS REGARD, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT THERE WAS RECOMMENDATION TO HAVE THE AREA OF LAND ONLY IN METRIC UNITS. THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID TABLE OF CONVERSION REFLECTS THAT IN D IFFERENT STATES, DIFFERENT AREA UNITS ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 21 ARE PREVALENT. FURTHER, THE SAID TABLE POINTS OUT THAT ONE ACRE IS EQUAL TO 40 GUNTAS AND ONE GUNTA IS EQUAL TO 100 SQ. MTRS. AND IN SOME AREAS, ONE ACRE IS EQUAL TO 121 SQ. YDS. IN THE SAID LIST ITSELF, ONE ACRE IS SHOWN TO BE EQUAL TO 4046.94 SQ. MTRS. IN THE STATE OF JHARKHAND. THE LIST ALSO PROVIDES THAT 100 SQ. MTRS. IS EQUAL TO 1 ARE AND ONE HECTARE IS EQUAL TO 100M X 100M = 10000 SQ. MTRS. THE PERUSAL OF THE REPORT REFLECTS THAT THOUGH VARIOUS AREA UNITS WHIC H ARE PREVALENT IN DIFFERENT STATES ARE MENTIONED IN THE TABLE THEREIN, BUT THERE IS NO MENTION OF UNITS / CONVERSION FACTORS PREVALENT IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 2 0 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE L AND MEASUREMENT UNITS PREVALENT IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA , WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. THE SAID DETAILS WERE DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE. IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE CONNOTATION OF ONE ACRE AND TH E EQUIVALENT SQ. MTRS. PREVALENT IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THE LAND EQUIVALENT SQ. MTRS. PREVALENT IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THE LAND MEASUREMENT UNITS ARE PROVIDED AS UNDER: - 12 INCHES = 1 FOOT 3 FEET = 1 YARD 9 SQUARE FEET = 1 SQUARE YARD 121 SQUARE YARD = 1 GUNTHA 40 GUNTAS = 1 ACRE 2 1. FURTHER, IT IS PROVIDED THAT ONE ACRE IS EQUAL TO 1 FURLONG X 1 CHAIN OR 660 FT X 66 FT OR 43560 SQ. FT. OR 4840 SQUARE YARDS OR 4046.8564224 SQUARE METERS. IT I S ALSO PROVIDED THAT ONE HECTARE IS EQUAL TO 10,000 SQUARE METERS AND / OR TO 2.4 7 ACRES. FURTHER, IN THE SAID LIST ITSELF IT IS PROVIDED THAT ONE HECTARE IS EQUAL TO 11959.8 SQUARE YARDS I.E. ONE SQUARE YARD IS EQUAL TO 0.83612736 SQ. MTRS. ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 22 2 2 . EVEN AS PER OXFORD DICTIONARY, AN ACRE IS RECOGNIZED AS UNIT FOR MEASURING AN AREA OF LAND , WHICH IN TURN, IS EQUAL TO 4,840 SQ. YDS. OR ABOUT 4,050 SQ. MTRS. AS PER WIKIPEDIA, ONE ACRE IS EQUAL TO 4046.856 SQ. MTRS. FURTHER, A S PER CONVERTUNITS.COM, THE DEFINITION OF ACRE IS AS UNDER: - AN ACRE IS A MEASURE OF LAND AREA IN IMPERIAL UNITS OR U.S. CUSTOMARY UNITS. IT IS EQUAL TO 43560 SQUARE FEET, 4840 SQUARE YARDS OR 160 SQUARE RODS. THE PRECISE MEANING OF THIS DEPENDS ON THE EXACT DEFINITION ADOPTED FOR A FOOT: THE INTERNATIONAL ACRE IS 4046.8564224 SQ. MTRS. FOR MEASUREMENTS BASED SPE CIFICALLY ON THE US SURVEY FOOT THE US SURVEY ACRE IS CA.4046.872610 SQ. MTRS. 2 3 . HENCE , AS PER CONVERTUNITS.COM, ONE ACRE IN US SURVEY IS 4046.872610 SQ. MTRS. T HE INTERNATIONAL ACRE IS THUS SAME AS THE ACRE RECOGNIZED BY INDIA. 24. THE LEARNED AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER PO INTED OUT THAT IN VIEW OF THE STANDARDS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1976 , THE UNIT OF MEASUREMENT OF AREA IS SQUARE METER, BUT IT IS TO BE TAKEN AS TWO DECIMALS . O NE HECTARE WAS EQUAL TO 2.5 ACRES AND SINCE ONE HECTARE WAS 1000 SQ. MTRS., WHICH WAS THE INFORMATION IN PUBLIC DOMAIN, THEN ONE ACRE WAS 1000 SQ. MTRS., WHICH WAS THE INFORMATION IN PUBLIC DOMAIN, THEN ONE ACRE WAS EQUAL TO 4000 SQ. MTRS. FIRST OF ALL THE STANDARDS O F WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT ARE FOR REGULATING TRADE AND NOT FOR MEASURING PLOTS, HENCE NOT APPLICABLE. FURTHER, W E FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE DEFINITION FOR ONE ACRE AVAILABLE UNDER VARIOUS SOURCES I N PUBLIC DOMAIN, ETC. EVEN THE LEASE DEED EXECUTED BY PCNTDA TO THE LESSEE TALKS OF AREA OF PLOT AS 4000 SQ. MTRS. THE INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM PCNTDA, WHICH CONFIRMED THAT AS A UNIT OF MEASUREMENT, THE LAND WAS MEASURED IN SQUARE METERS AND NOT IN ACRES. THE PCNTDA ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THE AREA OF 4000 SQ. MTRS. I.E. 2500 + 1500 P.C. WAS ALLOTTED TO THE LESSEE W ITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT . FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD RECEIVED A REPORT FROM THE VALUATION OFFICER, IN WHICH HE CONFIRMED THAT THE AREA OF THE PLOT ON ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 23 WHICH THE DEVELOP MENT HAD TAKEN PLACE WAS ONLY 4000 SQ. MTRS. AS REFERRED TO BY US IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE, EVEN THE SANCTIONED PLAN TALKS OF AREA OF 4000 SQ. MTRS. ONE OF THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT IN CASE THE AREA OF PLOT WAS EXCEEDING O NE ACRE, CERTAIN PORTION OF THE LAND WAS LEFT FOR AMENITIES. ADMITTEDLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO, NO LAND WAS LEFT FOR AMENITIES , MEANING THEREBY THE SAME DID NOT CONFORM TO MEASUREMENT OF ONE ACRE . 2 5 . ANOTHER ASPECT TO BE TAKEN NOTE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT 7/12 EXTRACT ALSO TALKS OF UNIT OF MEASUREMENT AS GUNTA IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED THAT IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 7/12 EXTRACT TALKED OF LAND MEASUREMENT IN GUNTAS. I N ORDER TO WORK OUT THE UNIT MEASUREMENT OF ONE ACRE , T HE FOLLOWING TABLE IS BEING REFERRED TO : ONE G UNTA = 33 X 33 FT 33 X 33 / 9 = 121 SQ. YDS. ONE GUNTHA = 121 SQ. YDS . 40 GUNTAS = 1 ACRE 1 ACRE = 40 X 121 SQ. YDS. 2 6 . WHERE 1 ACRE IS EQUAL TO 4840 SQ. YDS. AND ONE SQ.YD. IS EQUAL TO 0.83612736 SQ. MTRS. , S O, ONE ACRE IS EQUAL TO 4046.8564224 SQUARE METERS. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN AND THE UNIT MEASUREMENT PREVALENT IN THE ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA I.E. GUNTAS , WE HOLD THAT THE UNIT MEASUREMENT OF ONE ACRE IS EQUAL TO 4046.8726 SQ. MTRS . EVEN THE INFORMATION ON WIKIPEDIA IN MARATHI SHOWS ONE ACR E IS EQUAL TO 4046.8726 SQ. MTRS. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD THAT ONE ACRE IS EQUAL TO 4000 SQ. MTRS. ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 24 2 7 . NOW, COMING TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PCNTDA IN THE LAYOUT PLAN HAS MENTIONED 2500 + 1500 P.C AND IN DEVNAGARI ONE ACRE IS ALSO WRITTEN. IN OTHER WORDS, THE AREA OF 4000 SQ. MTRS. IS EQUIVALENT TO ONE ACRE. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, PCNTDA HAS COMMUNICATED THAT IT HAD LEASED OUT 4000 SQ. MTRS. OF LAND TO TH E LESSEE OF PLOT WHICH WAS DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LAYOUT PLAN WHICH IS ANNEXED TO THE LEASE DEED IS PLACED AT PAGE 33 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND PERUSAL OF THE SAME REFLECTS THE PLOTS WERE DEMARCATED INTO BULK LANDS OF VARIOUS MEASUREMENTS AND ONE PORT ION OF THE LAND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LAYOUT PLAN IS ALLOCATED TO THE LESSEE MR. PATIL. O N ONE SIDE OF THE SAID PLOT WAS WRITTEN AS 2500 + 1500 P.C. I.E. 4000 SQ. MTRS. + A ROAD HAS BEEN DEMARCATED N EXT TO IT , WHICH IS 172 ROADS 40S, ETC. THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE US HAS POINTED OUT THAT ONLY PORTION OF THE LAND MEASURING 4000 SQ. MTRS. WAS ALLOTTED AND THE ROADS WERE DEVELOPED BY PCNTDA ITSELF. EVEN THE GARDEN WAS DEVELOPED BY PCNTDA ITSELF. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT W HERE THE LAND DEVELOPED BY PCNTDA ITSELF. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT W HERE THE LAND ALLOCATED TO MR. PATEL WAS ONLY 4000 SQ. MTRS. AND THE BALANCE LAND HA D BEEN MARKED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SIDE ROAD OUT OF ORI GINAL DEMARCATION FOR ONE ACRE, BUT AFTER ALLOCATION OF 4000 SQ. MTRS. AND DEMARCATION OF LAND FOR ROADS, TOTAL PLOT WA S NOT ONE ACRE. WHERE THE UNIT MEASU REMENT FOR LAND IS TO BE RECOGNIZED AS SQUARE METER AND THE ASSESSEE HAS DEVELOPED ITS HOUSING PROJECT ON A PLOT O F LAND MEASURING 4000 SQ. MTRS., WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80IB( 10) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT IS MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO 4046.8726 SQ. MTRS. , THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ARE NOT FULFILLED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND HENCE, IT IS NOT ENTITLED TO TH E SAID CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD SO. ITA NO. 932 /PN/20 1 1 VIRAG DESHPANDAY DEVELOPERS 25 2 8 . FURTHER, SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY BOTH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES VIS - - VIS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE AREA OF ROW HOUSE NO.1. IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT BEEN FULFILLED THE FIRST CONDITION OF MINIMUM AREA OF LAND AND BEING NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT , WE DO NOT ADDRESS THE OTHER ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, DI S MISSED. 2 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF FEBRU ARY , 201 6 . SD/ - SD/ - (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 29 TH FEBR UARY , 201 6 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE A PPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - V , PUNE ; 4. / THE CIT - V , PUNE ; 5. , , / DR B , ITAT, PUNE; / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE