Hindustan Samuha Awas Ltd., Aurangabad V. ITO, Aurangabad

ITA 945/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56449 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANN KAPTHUAMA SR
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Non compliance
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C.SUDHIR, JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER ITA NOS. 94 5 TO 950/PN/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2007-08) HINDUSTAN SAMUHA AWAS LTD. S-2/1, SECTOR NO.3 WALMI-BAJAJ ROAD NAKSHTRAWADI, AURANGABAD APPELLANT PAN AAACH8636G VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD RESPONDENT APPLLANT BY: SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK, AR RESPONDENT BY: ANN KAPTH UAMA SR AR ORDER PER I.C.SUDHIR, AM .: THESE ARE SIX APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAI NST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS), AURANGABAD DT. 13-5-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 002-03 TO 2007-08. THE GROUNDS IN ALL THESE SIX APPEALS ARE I DENTICAL AND RELATES TO THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) FOR NON COMPLIANCE IN MATTERS O F FILING OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN TIME. BEFORE US, IT WAS R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED I N HOLDING THAT THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AS PER ARCHIT ECTS APPLICATION DT.25-3-2008 CANNOT BE TREATED AS DATE OF COMPLETIO N AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATES ON 10-10-2008 WHICH IS BEYOND 31.3.2008. 5. AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING, THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT AP PEALS IS FULLY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. A) SANGHVI AND DOSHI ENTERPRISE V. ITO AND OTHERS ITA NOS. 259 TO 263/MDS/2010 DT.19-5-2011 FOR AYS 05-06 & 06-07 (TM) B) M/S D.K.CONSTRUCTIONS V. ITO ITA NO.243/IND/2010 AY 2006- 07 DT. 6-12-2010 /PN/2010 HINDU STAN SAMUHA AWAS LTD. C) M/S SATISH BOHRA & ASSOCIATES V. ACIT ITA NOS. 713 & 714/ PN/2010 AYS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 VIDE ORDER DT.7-1-2 011 IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ITS ARCHITECT HA D FILED SEPARATE PLAN FOR EACH OF THE SIX SECTORS WITH AMC ALONG WIT H APPLICATION DT. 25-3-2008 FOR OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE. THE AMC, HOWE VER, HAS ISSUED OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ON 10-10-2008. THE ASSESSEE, FOR OBTAINING THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE HAD FURNISHED ALL THE NEC ESSARY DOCUMENTS AND HAD COMPLIED WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND THER E WAS NO LAPSE IN THIS REGARD. IT WAS BEYOND THE POWER AND CONTRO L OF THE ASSESSEE TO COMPEL AMC TO ISSUE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ON OR BEFORE 31-3- 2008. THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PAGE NOS. 1 TO 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK FLED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, T HESE ARE THE COPIES OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF APPLICATION DT. 25-3-2008 FOR OBTAINING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE, IND EMNITY BOND DT. 31-3-2008, CERTIFICATE FROM THE ARCHITECT AND PROOF REGARDING PAYMENT OF FEES TO LOCAL AUTHORITY ON 31-3-2008. TH E LD COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DT . 10-10-2008 HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE AMC BASED ON THE APPLICATION MOV ED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ITS ARCHITECT ON 25-3-208 FOR OBTA INING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. THE AMC HAS ISSUED OCCUPANCY CERTIFIC ATE WITHOUT RAISING ANY OBJECTION WHATSOEVER IN THE PLAN COMPLETED BY T HE ASSESSEE AS PER THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE AMC ON 4-2-2000. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND, TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT UNDISPUTEDLY, THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFI CATE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY I.E. AMC ONLY ON 10-1 0-2008. THUS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE DISALLOWA NCE OF THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON THE BA SIS THAT THE PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETED BY 31-3-2008. THE PROVIS IONS OF SEC. 80IB(10)(A)(II) OF THE ACT ALSO REQUIRE THAT THE DA TE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE 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. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE VIEW POINTS OF THE PARTIES IN DISPUTED. WE FIND THAT IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESS EE THROUGH ITS ARCHITECT HAD FILED APPLICATION WITH THE AMC FOR IS SUANCE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ON 25-3-2008. REQUISITE FEE WAS ALSO PAID BY /PN/2010 HINDU STAN SAMUHA AWAS LTD. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. AMC DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION TO THE SAID COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF THE ARCHITECT. THE O CCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DT.10-10-2008 HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE AMC ONLY ON TH E BASIS OF THE SAID APPLICATION DT.25-3-2008. IT IS ALSO AN UNDIS PUTED FACT THAT ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE IS THE PREROGATIV E OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY I.E. AMC AND IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CONTROL AND IT IS BEYOND THE POWER OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE THE AMC ISSUE THE SAID COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE BEFORE 31 .3.2008. WHAT WAS UNDER THE POWER AND CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY TO MOVE THE AMC FOR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FULFILLING ALL T HE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE AMC FOR ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE, WHIC H THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THUS, THE DELAY IN I SSUING THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED ON THE P ART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DENY THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS THAT THE PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETED BY 31- 3-2008, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS NO OBJECTION RAISED BY THE AMC REGARDING DEVIATION IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT APPROV ED BY THE AMC. 8. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS CITED BY THE AS SESSEES REPRESENTATIVE AND FIND RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS ARE REQ UIRED TO BE EXTRACTED FOR COMPLETION OF THE ORDER. THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS. A. EXTRACT FROM THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF M/S. SATISH BORA & ASSOCIATES VIDE ITA NOS. 713 & 714/P N/2010 19. . 1. IN THE CASE OF PMC, THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE I N PRESCRIBED FORM ISSUED BY THE LICENSED ARCHITECT ETC. WHO HAS SUPERVISED THE CONSTRUCTION IS FURNISHED WITH FOUR SETS OF COMPLET ION PLAN UNDER RULE 7.6 OF THE DC RULES OF THE PMC. THEREAFTER PM C IS REQUIRED TO RETURN ONE OF THE SETS DULY CERTIFIED AS COMPLETION PLAN TO THE OWNER ALONG WITH THE ISSUE OF FULL OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE AFTER INSPECTION OF THE WORK UNDER RULE 7.7 OF THE DC RULES. SINCE EXP LATION (II) TO SECTION 80IB(10)(A) OF THE I.T. ACT REQUIRES COMPLE TION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY TO BE TAKEN AS THE DA TE OF COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING IN OUR VIEW IS THAT A COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WHICH IS ISSUED BY THE LOCA L AUTHORITY AFTER CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS OF CONSTRUCTION BY IT. IN CASE OF PMC, IT IS ONLY OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE WHICH IS ISSUED ALONGWI TH CERTIFIED COMPLETION PLAN AFTER INSPECTION OF THE CONSTRUCTIO N BY IT, WE HAVE TREATED THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF SUCH OCCUPANCY CERT IFICATE ALONGWITH CERTIFIED COMPLETION PLAN AS THE DATE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF THE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE REQUIREMENT OF EXPLANATION (II) TO SECTION 80IB(10)(A) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. SINCE INFACT PMC DO NOT ISSUE OCCUPANCY CERTIFIC ATE GENERALLY IN TIME AND WITH THIS UNDERSTANDING THE LEGISLATURE HAVE ALSO INTRODUCED A DEEMING PROVISION OF 21 DAYS TO PUT CO NSTRAINT UPON PMC, WE AFTER DETAILED DELIBERATION IN PRECEDIGN PA RAGRAPHS HAVE COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT IN CASE OF SMALL OBJECTIO NS OF PMC RAISED AFTER EXPIRY OF DEEMING PERIOD OF 21 DAYS UNDER RU LE 7.7 OF DC RULES UNDER PMC, THE DATE WHEN THE APPLICANT ACQUIR ED DEEMING /PN/2010 HINDU STAN SAMUHA AWAS LTD. SANCTION WILL BE TREATED AS THE DATE OF COMPLETION (OCCUPANCY) CERTIFICATE TO MEET OUT THE REQUIREMENT OF EXPLANAT ION (II) TO SECTION 80IB (10)(A) OF THE ACT. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE WHAT WOULD BE THE SMALL OBJECTIONS. IN BRIEF THOSE OBJECTIONS WHICH DO NOT AFFECT THE MAIN PROJECT AND ARE GENERALLY TE MPORARY CONSTRUCTIONS. 20. WE THUS WHILE SETTING ASIDE ORDERS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW DIRECT THE A.O TO ALLOW THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10 ) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION TREATIN G THE REQUIRED DATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT AS THE DATE WHEN ABOVE DISCUSSED DEEMING PROVISION PERIOD OF 21 DAYS EXPIR ED I.E. 20.11.20. B. EXTRACT FROM THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF SANGHVI & DOSHI ENTERPRISE VIDE ITA NO. 259 TO 263/MDS/2010 24. NEXT OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE PROJECT HAD TO BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2008 AND SINCE THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBL E FOR DEDUCTION. THE OBJECTION IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE COMPLETION CERT IFICATE FROM CMDA IS DATED 13.6.2008, I.E. THREE MONTHS AFTER THE DUE DATE FOR COMPLETING THE PROJECT. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT HAS TO BE NOTED THAT THE COM PLETION CERTIFICATE IS TO BE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. THE QUESTION IS, WH ETHER CMDA CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE A LOCAL AUTHORITY OR NOT. THIS IS SUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JAIN H OUSING & CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. IN ITA NO.1369/MDS/2009 DATED 5.2.2010. IN TH AT CASE, ASSESSEE WAS DENIED DEDUCTION IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETION CERTI FICATE BY THE CMDA BUT COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF CHENNAI WAS PLACED ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL IN PARAGRAPH 3.5 OF ITS ORDER STATED THAT THE PROJECT LAYOUT PLAN MAY BE REQUIRED TO BE APPROVED BY THE C MDA BUT AS FAR AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING IS CONCERNED, THE LOCA L AUTHORITY, I.E. THE CORPORATION OF CHENNAI IS THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE CONSTRUCTION AS PER THE BUILDING BYE-LAWS AND SANCT ION PLANS. WHEN IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE CORPORATION IS THE LOCAL AUTHORIT Y, CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY IT CANNOT BE DISREGARDED. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION BY WAY OF ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE. SINCE THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE ENTIRE DEDUCTION DEPENDS ON ALL THE CONDITIONS BEING FULFILLED DEDUCTION DEPENDS ON ALL THE CONDITIONS BEING FULFI LLED, WE ADMIT THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE CERTIFICATE CLEARLY MENTI ONS THAT THE BUILDING WAS INSPECTED ON 23.11.2007 AND THAT IT IS FOUND TO BE SATISFIED THE BUILDING PERMIT CONDITIONS. WE MAY ALSO MENTIONS THAT THE ROLE OF CMDA IS QUITE DISTINCT FROM THAT OF THE CORPORATION. CMDA LOOKS AT THE PL ANS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND URBANISATION OF THE CITY AS A W HOLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ROLE OF THE CORPORATION WHILE ISSUING COMPLETIO N CERTIFICATE IS TO SEE THAT THE UNIT IS HABITABLE IN ALL RESPECTS LIKE CIVIC AM ENITIES AND SO ON. EVEN FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT IF THE CMDA CERTIFICATE IS TO BE C ONSIDERED, THEN IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE DID APPLY FOR THE COMPLETION CER TIFICATE TO CMDA CERTIFICATE ON 13.3.2006. IT IS A DIFFERENT MATTER THAT CMDA R AISED CERTAIN OBJECTIONS AND THE MATTER WENT UPTO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ALSO. HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED MUCH BEFORE THE DUE DATE, MAY BE WITH CERTAIN DEFECTS. ALSO, IT HAS TO BE NOTED THAT THE CMDA CERTIFICATE IS DATED 13.6.2008, I.E. ONLY TWO MONTHS AND THIRTEEN DAYS B EYOND THE DUE DATE. IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE TYPE OF DEFECTS WHICH WERE P OINTED OUT BY THE CMDA COULD HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED IN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ALSO RATIFIED THE DEVIATIONS AND DIRECTED THE CMDA TO CONSIDER THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. ALL THE SE FACTS GO TO POINT THAT THE PROJECT WAS INDEED COMPLETED BEFORE THE 31.3.2008. THUS, THIS GROUND ALSO HAS NO FORCE TO DENY THE ASSESSEE THE IMPUGNED DEDU CTION. /PN/2010 HINDU STAN SAMUHA AWAS LTD. C EXTRACT FROM THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. D.K.CONSTRUCTION VIDE ITA 243/IND/2010 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, CAREF ULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RELEVANT MATERI AL PLACED ON RECORD TOWARDS WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED DURING THE COURSE O F HEARING BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND THE LD. SENIOR D.R. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB ALLOWS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF HOUSING PR OJECT, WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED PRIOR TO 1.4.2004 AND ALSO COMPLETED BEFOR E 31.3.2008. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT WITH REGARD TO ASSESSEES CLAI M OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB IN RESPECT OF ITS D.K.HONEY HOMES PROJECT, THE AO HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OF THIS PROJE CT M/S. D.K.HONEY HOMES. THE AO ALSO DIRECTLY CALLED INFORMATION FROM THE LO CAL AUTHORITIES BY ISSUING SUMMONS U/S.133(6) AND A LETTER WAS ISSUED BY THE C OMPETENT AUTHORITY DATED 11 TH NOVEMBER, 2008, CONFIRMING THAT NO COMPLETION CERT IFICATE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSES SEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB WAS DECLINED. SECTION 80IB CLEARLY DEFINES T HE DATE OF COMPLETION AS DATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE 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 AUTHORITIES, IT MEA NS LOCAL AUTHORITIES IS COMPETENT TO CERTIFY THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF HOUS ING PROJECT. THE DATE OF ISSUE OF SUCH LETTER BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES IS NO T SO CRUCIAL BUT IT SHOULD HAVE CLEARLY MENTIONED THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF PROJECT . WHEN THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED ON 31.3.2008 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS INFORME D REGARDING SUCH COMPLETION, THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES MAY TAKE ITS OWN TIME FOR ISSUE OF CERTIFICATE, WHICH MAY BE EVEN AFTER 6-7 MONTHS, BUT THE LETTER SO ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES SHOULD CLEARLY MENTION THE DATE OF COMP LETION OF SUCH PROJECT. MERELY BECAUSE SUCH CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AFTER GAP OF 8-9 MONTHS OR EVEN ONE YEAR, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ASSESSEE IF IT HAS MENTIONED CLEARLY THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF PROJECT PRIOR TO 31.3.2008. ONC E THE LETTER FOR COMPLETION OF PROJECT IS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE LOCAL AU THORITY, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY TO VERIFY PHYSICALLY THE PROJECTS S TATED TO BE COMPLETED FROM ITS OWN PARAMETERS. THIS PROCESS MAY TAKE TIME AND, T HEREFORE, THE DATE OF ISSUE OF LETTER IS NOT SO CRUCIAL TO DETERMINE THE ASSESSEES ELIGIBILITY FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AS PER EXPLANATION (II) OF SECTION 80I B(10)(A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. WHAT IS CRUCIAL IS DATE MENTIONED IN T HE LETTER SO ISSUED CERTIFYING COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. THUS, THE DATE OF ISSUE OF LETTER IS NOT IMPORTANT, BUT THE DATE MENTIONED IN THE LETTER CERTIFYING COM PLETION OF PROJECT IS IMPORTANT. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND MAY MERIT I N THE OBSERVATION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO THE EFFECT THAT THE DATE OF CO MPLETION SHALL BE TAKEN THE DATE ON WHICH CERTIFICATE IS PHYSICALLY ISSUED BY T HE LOCAL AUTHORITIES. 9. FROM THE ABOVE, ONE THIS IS CLEAR THAT THE DATE THAT APPEAR ON THE ARCHITECTS COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FILED BEFORE THE LOCAL AUTHORITY IS A RELEVANT ONE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE SAID DA TE IS 25-3-2008 AND THE ASSESSEE FILED REQUISITE FORM BEFORE THE LO CAL AUTHORITIES INTIMATING THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. THE SAID CERTIFICATE/ INTIMATION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WITH OUT ANY AMENDMENTS OR OBJECTIONS. LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS NOT R AISED ANY QUERIES ON THE QUALITY CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING OR THE COMPLETION OF THE SAME AS PER THE PLANS APPROVED BY SUCH AUTHO RITY. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR OPINION, THE DELAY IN OBTAINI NG THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ON 10-10-2008 IS CERTAINLY NOT ATTRIBUT ABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND OBTAINING THE SAID CERTIFICATE BEFORE 31.3.2008 IS /PN/2010 HINDU STAN SAMUHA AWAS LTD. BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEES JOB INCLUDES THE COMPLETION OF THE BUILDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE A PPROVED PLANS AND INTIMATION OF THE SAME TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY B Y WAY OF FILING THE REQUISITE FORMS TOGETHER WITH THE COMPLETION CERTIF ICATE GIVEN BY THE ARCHITECT, THE SPECIALIST IN THE MATTER AND THE ASS ESSEE HAS DONE HIS JOB SCRUPULOUSLY IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, THE LOCAL A UTHORITY HAS NEITHER OBJECTED TO THE SAID APPLICATION OF THE ASS ESSEE AND THE ARCHITECT BY RAISING ANY OBJECTIONS NOR ACCEPTED BY ISSUE OF SAID COMPLETION CERTIFICATE TILL 10.10.2008. THEREFORE, THE DELAY IN GRANT OF THE SAID CERTIFICATE IS CERTAINLY NOT ATTRIBUTAB LE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DEFA ULTER ON THIS ACCOUNT AND THUS, THE AO HAS ERRED IN DENYING THE D EDUCTION U/S 80IA(10) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS TO BE REVERSED. THUS, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL AR E ALLOWED . 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH AUGUST 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) (I.C.SUDH IR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER PUNE, DATED: 30 -8- 2011 COPY TO:- 1) ASSESSEE 2) THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, PUNE 3) THE CIT (A) II, PUNE 4) THE CIT CONCERNED 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASST. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., PUNE