The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Baroda V. M/s. Narayan Land & Estate, Bharuch

ITSSA 175/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8361 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: U S BHATI
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 153A; 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI D. K. TYAGI, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVE DI, AM) IT(SS)A NO. 172, 173, 174, 175 ,176 AND ITA NO.566/ AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 THE D. C. I. T., CENT. CIR-1, 16 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, BARODA VS M/S. NARAYAN LAND & ESTATE, NARAYAN CHAMBER, STATION ROAD, BHARUCH, P. A. NO. AACFN 0406 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY SHRI T. SHANKAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI U. S. BHATI, AR DATE OF HEARING: 07-08-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21-09-2012 O R D E R PER BENCH: ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I V, BARODA ALL DATED 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2009 FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE SE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE RELATING TO ONE ASSESSEE ON IDENTICAL FACTS EXCEPT THE FIGURES AND ON COMMON GROUNDS. THESE APP EALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS C ONSOLIDATED ORDER BY TAKING THE FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. THE COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENU E ARE AS UNDER: IT (SS) A NO. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176 AND ITA NO.56 6/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 2 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY A. O. OF RS.33,02,233/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWAN CE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D. C. I. T. (A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.33,02,233/- U/S 80 IB (10) OF T HE I. T. ACT. THE AO HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 3 TO 4 OF HIS ORDE R AND WHILE DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U /S 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.33,02,233/-, HE HAS GIVEN H IS FINAL FINDING IN PARA 8 AND 8.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER: 8. TO CONCLUDE, THE DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB R. W. S. 8 0IB (1) AND RULE 18 BBB IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY TO SUCH ASSESSEE AS ARE DERIVING PROFITS FROM AN UNDERTAKING OF BUILDING AN D HOUSING PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND FOR SUCH APPROVAL, THE ASSESSEE MUST LEGALLY OWN THE LA ND WHICH IS AN INALIENABLE CONSTITUENT OF ANY HOUSING PROJECT. THE PERSON DOING ONLY THE WORK OF DEVELOPING AND CONSTRUCTING THE BUILDING STRUCTURE ON THE AUTHORIT Y OF THE APPROVAL GRANTED TO THE LAND OWNER CAN NOT BE SAID TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF AN UNDERTAKING DEVELOPING AND BU ILDING HOUSING PROJECTS, NOT ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF NOT BEING THE OWNER OF THE LAND, A NECESSARY CONSTITUENT OF THE H OUSING PROJECT, BUT ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF NOT HAVING BEEN GRA NTED APPROVAL TO EXECUTE THE PROJECTS IN HIS OWN RIGHT, BECAUSE THAT INVOLVES OBLIGATIONS THAT CAN BE DISCHARGE ONL Y BY THE PERSON TO WHOM THE APPROVAL IS GRANTED. IT (SS) A NO. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176 AND ITA NO.56 6/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 3 8.1 SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF LAND AND THE APPROVAL OF LOCAL AUTHORITY IS NOT IN THE NAME OF T HE ASSESSEE BUT IN THE NAME OF THE LAND OWNERS, THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80IB (10) R. W. S. 80IB(1), ARE NOT FULFILLED. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE I N THE ABOVE PRECEDING PARAS, DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) CLAI MED OF RS.33,02,233/- CAN NOT BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSE E AND THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (1) (C) ARE INITIATED ON THIS POINT FOR FUR NISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 4. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUB MISSIONS WERE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE: 5.1 THE LEARNED COUNSEL THROUGH HIS DETAILED WRITT EN SUBMISSION HAS SUBMITTED ON THIS ISSUE AS UNDER: 3.0 AT THE OUTSET IT MAY BE SUBMITTED THAT NOT AN I OTA OF EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCHES CARRIED OUT ON 31 ST MAY,2006 WHICH WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE APPELLANT FIRM WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U /S 80 IB(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE THE A BOVE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION MADE BY THE LD. A. O. AFT ER INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C CAN NOT BE JUST IFIED, MORE SO, WHEN THE SAME DISALLOWANCE MADE DURING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR A. YR. 2003-04 ON THE SIMILA R BASIS, IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FIRM, WAS ALLOW ED BY THE HONBLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD IN THE CELEBRATED JUDGM ENT OF M/S. RADHE DEVELOPERS & ORS. (WHERE THE APPELLAN T FIRM WAS ALSO ONE OF THE PARTY). MOREOVER, NO OTHER ADDITION OR DISALLOWANCE EXCEPT U/S 80 IB (10) WAS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER(S) PASSED U/S 153C R. W. S. 153A R. W. S. 153A FROM A. YR. 2002-03 TO A. YR. 2007-08 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FIRM. THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OF ANY SEIZED MATERIAL OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE IN ALL THE AB OVE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LD. A. O. OUGHT TO HAVE DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C R. W . S. IT (SS) A NO. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176 AND ITA NO.56 6/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 4 153A OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, WHERE ONLY DISALLOWANCES U/S 80 IB (10) WERE MADE. 3.1 HERE IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE LD. A. O. HAD MADE THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT THE APPELLANT FIRM WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND, WHICH WAS DEVELOPED BY IT AND THE NECESSARY APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT WAS NOT IN ITS NAME BECAUSE THE SAME WA S OBTAINED BY THE LAND OWNERS. THE LD. A. O. DID NOT FIND CONTRAVENTION OF ANY OTHER TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB (10). HE HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE MEMORANDUM OF ARRANGEMENTS ENTERED INTO AMONG LANDOWNERS, ORGANISOR AND THE APPELLANT FIRM. THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED MERELY ON THE BASIS T HAT THE APPELLANT FIRM WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND TH E APPROVAL WAS NOT IN ITS NAME, BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOW ING REASONS:- (1) THE APPELLANT FIRM HAD ENTERED INTO A TRIPARTIT E MEMORANDUM OF ARRANGEMENT WITH M/S. NARAYAN ORGANISERS (LAND OWNERS) AND M/S. NARAYAN ASSOCIATE S ((ORGANISORS) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEVERAL PROJEC TS DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002- 03 ONWARDS. THE ABOVE AGREEMENTS WERE ENTERED INTO AMONG ALL THE THREE PARTIES ON PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIP AL BASIS AND NOT PRINCIPAL AND AGENT BASIS. A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT IS ALSO ENCLOSED HEREWITH VIDE ANNEXURE A. MOREOVER, AS PER THE ABOVE MEMORANDUM OF ARRANGEMENT, THE APPELLANT FIRM WAS TO SHARE NOT O NLY THE PROFITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT BUT WAS ALSO EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELO PMENT. THE RELEVANT IMPORTANT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ABOVE MEMORANDUM ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 01. THE LAND OWNER SHALL OR SHALL DEEM TO HAVE PERMITTED THE DEVELOPER & BUILDER AND ORGANISOR AND THE DEVELOPER & BUILDER AND ORGANISOR SHALL OR SHALL DE EM TO HAVE ORGANIZED AND DEVELOPED AT THEIR OWN COSTS, RI SKS , IT (SS) A NO. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176 AND ITA NO.56 6/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 5 EXPENSES AND RESPONSIBILITY AND ON PRINCIPAL TO PR INCIPAL BASIS AND NOT AS AGENTS OF LAND OWNER BY CONSTRUCTI NG RESIDENTIAL UNIT OR UNITS OF BUYER-MEMBER OR MEMBER S OF THE SCHEME ASHUTOSH -3 AND BY CREATING AND DEVELO PING COMMON AMENITIES AND INTRASTA-FACILITIES ON THE SAI D LANDS PROPERTY SITUATED LYING AND BEING AT VILLAGE MOJE ALI, TALUKA & DISTRICT BHARUCH IN REGISTRATION DISTRICT AND SUB- DISTRICT BHARUCH CONTAINING BY ADMEASUREMENT OR THEREABOUT BEARING SURVEY NO. R. S. NO.59/1/A/4 AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE HEREUND ER WRITTEN AND DELINEATED ON THE PLANT THEREOF HERETO ANNEXED AND SHOWN SURROUNDED BY RED COLOURED BOUNDARY LINE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATION AGRE ED UPON AND AS PER THE PLANS THAT MAY BY SANCTIONED & APPROVED BY THE COMPETENT AND CONCERNED LOCAL OR SE MI- GOVT. OR GOVT. AUTHORITIES. 3.5 LAND ACQUISITION VALUE IT WOULD MEAN AND IS DEFINED AS THE AMOUNT OF PURCH ASE CONSIDERATION TO BE PAID TO THE LAND-OWNER IN CONSIDERATION OF TRANSFERRING/AND OR ASSIGNING THE BENEFICIARY RIGHTS INTO THE PIECE OF LAND ALLOTTED OR ASSIGNED TO INDIVIDUAL-BUYER MEMBER OR MEMBERS UNDE R THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCHEME ASHUTOSH -3 3.7 CONSTRUCTION COST REALIZATION IT WOULD MEAN AND IS DEFINED AS THE COST OF CONSTRU CTING A RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATION M UTUALLY AGREED UPON AS PER APPROVED PLANS AND TO BE RECEIVE D FROM THE SCHEME-MEMBER WITH WHOM A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO AND INTERALIA INCLUDED TH EREIN THE DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION AND THE AMOUNT OF CONST RUCTION VALUE FOR CONSTRUCTION THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE MEMBER WHICH INCLUDES THE DEVELO PERS & BUILDERS PROFIT THEREON ALSO. IT (SS) A NO. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176 AND ITA NO.56 6/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 6 3.8 COMMON AMENITIES AND INFRASTRA-FACILITIES CONTRIBUTION IT WOULD MEAN AND IS DEFINED THE MONEY COLLECTED FR OM THE MEMBER OR MEMBERS OF THE SCHEME ASHUTOSH -3 TOWARDS CREATION, DEVELOPMENT & BUILT UP OF COMMON AMENITIES AND INFRASTA-FACILITIES WHICH INCLUDES TH E DEVELOPER & BUILDERS PROFIT THEREON ALSO. (2) IT IS A FACT THAT THE LAND OF THE PROJECT WAS N OT OWNED BY THE APPELLANT FIRM BUT BY M/S. NARAYAN ORGANISOR S AND ACCORDINGLY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF REVENUE CODE , THEY HAVE OBTAINED THE NECESSARY APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND . IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT THE APPELLANT FIRM WAS NOT A MERE A CONTRACTOR BUT A DEVELOPER IN ITS TRUE SENSE AND THEREFORE ELIGIBL E TO SHARE NOT ONLY PROFITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT BUT TO BEAR LOS SES ALSO. AS A DEVELOPER THE APPELLANT FIRM HAD EXERCIS ED SUFFICIENT DOMINANCE OVER THE PROJECT AND THEY WERE NOT TO GET ANY FIXED REMUNERATION ON THE BASIS OF ARRANG EMENT. THE LAND OWNERS WERE ELIGIBLE TO GET ONLY PRICE OF LAND AND NOT TO GET ANY SHARE IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROFITS OF PROJECT. (3) AS SUBMITTED ABOVE, THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WERE EXAMINED BY THE HIGHEST FACT FINDING AUTHORITY I.E. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD FOR THE A. YR. 20 03-03 AND THE DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB (10) WAS ALLOWED BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE REPORTED AS M/S. RADHE DEVELOP ERS & ORS. V/S. I.T.O. & ORS. 113 TTJ (AHD) 300. IN THIS CONNECTION THE FOLLOWING ARE THE RELEVANT PARAS: A BARE READING OF THIS PROVISIONS OF S. 80IB (10), AS THEY STOOD IN THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE REQUIRE MENTS FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION FOR HOUSING PROJECTS ARE THA T (I) THERE MUST BE AN UNDERTAKING DEVELOPING AND BUILDIN G HOUSING PROJECT; (II) SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS APPRO VED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY; (III) THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONS TRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT HAS COMMENCED ON OR AFTER 1 ST DAY OF IT (SS) A NO. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176 AND ITA NO.56 6/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 7 OCTOBER, 1998; (IV) THE HOUSING PROJECT IS ON A SIZ E OF A PLOT OF LAND WHICH HAS MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE; AN D (V) THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT DEVELOPED AND BUILT HAS A BUIL T UP AREA OF 1000 SQ. FT. IF IT IS SITUATED IN DELHI AND MUMB AI OR WITHIN 25 KM. OF MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF THESE CITIES AN D 1500 SQ. FT. AT ANY OTHER PLACES. THERE IS NO OTHER COND ITION, WHICH IS TO BE COMPLIED WITH BY AN ASSESSEE FOR CLA IMING THE DEDUCTION ON PROFITS OF THE HOUSING PROJECT. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10), THERE IS A CONDITION PRECED ENT THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST BE OWNER OF THE LAND ON WHICH HOU SING PROJECT IS CONSTRUCTED HAS NO FORCE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUCH CONDITION AS APPEARING IN THE PROVISIONS OF TH E SECTION EXTRACTED ABOVE. A PLAIN READING OF SUB-SEC TION (10) OF SEC.80IB REVEALS AND MAKES IT EVIDENT THAT THERE MUST BE AN UNDERTAKING DEVELOPING AND BUILDING A HOUSING PROJECT AS APPROVED BY A LOCAL AUTHORITY. I T DOES NOT HAVE ANY FURTHER CONDITION THAT SUCH DEVELOPMEN T AND BUILDING OF THE HOUSING PROJECT SHOULD ALSO BE ON A LAND OWNED BY AN ASSESSEE UNDERTAKING. IT MIGHT BE TRUE THAT THE LAND BELONGS TO THE PERSONS WHO HAS ENTERED INT O AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE TO DEVELOP AND BUILD HOUSING PROJECT BUT ON A PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENT A S NARRATED ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING WORK HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN PURSUANCE OF A TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT AND IT IS NOT B Y THE LAND OWNERS. THEREFORE, THE MERE FACT THAT THE LAND -OWNER AND THE UNDERTAKING DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECT, ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. THE DEDUCTION WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO THE PERSON WHO IS DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECT AND NOT TO THE MERE OWNER THEREOF. HAVING ENTERED INTO AGREEME NTS WITH LANDOWNERS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING THE HOUSING PROJECT, WAS OBVIOUSLY A CONTRACTOR BUT IT DOES NOT DEROGATE THE ASSESSEE FOR BEING A DEVELOPER, AS WEL L. THE TERM CONTRACTOR IS NOT ESSENTIALLY CONTRADICTORY TO THE TERM DEVELOPER. THE ASSESSEE IS A DEVELOPER AND NOT A CONTRACTOR AS HELD BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE DEVELOPER IS NOT WORKING ON REMUNERATION FOR THE IT (SS) A NO. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176 AND ITA NO.56 6/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 8 LANDOWNERS, BUT DEVELOPERS IS WORKING FOR HIMSELF I N ORDER TO EXPLOIT THE POTENTIAL OF ITS BUSINESS IN HIS OWN INTEREST AND, THEREFORE, OPTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RISKS ASSOCI ATED WITH THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF REAL ESTATE INCLUDIN G DEVELOPING AND BUILDING OF HOUSING PROJECTS. (4) THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF RA DHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) WAS ALSO ENDORSED BY THE HONBLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD IN THE UNREPORTED CASE OF ITO & ORS . V/S SHAKTI CORPORATION & ORS. IN ITA NO.1503/A/2008 , 1361/A/2006 AND 1769/A/2008 DATED 7 TH NOVEMBER, 2008 WITH THE FOLLOWING QUALIFICATION: THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) AND ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE DOMINANT OVER THE LAND AND HAS DEVELOPED THE HOUSING PROJECT BY INCURRING ALL THE EXPENSES AND TAKING ALL THE RISKS INVOLVED THEREIN. WE MAY MENTION HERE THAT, IN OUR OPINION, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) WILL NOT APPLY IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT FOR A FIXED REMUNERATION MERELY AS A CONTRACTOR TO CONSTRUCT OR DEVELOP THE HOUSING PROJECT ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER. THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO IN THAT CASE WILL NOT ENTITLE THE DEVELOPER TO HAVE THE DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT AND ALL THE RISKS INVOLVED THEREIN WILL VEST WITH THE LANDOWNER ONLY. THE INTEREST OF THE DEVELOPER WILL BE RESTRICTED ONLY FOR THE FIXED REMUNERATION FOR WHICH HE WOULD BE RENDERING THE SERVICES. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) HAS NOT DEALT WITH SUCH SITUATION. THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS CANNOT BE APPLIED UNIVERSALLY WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE DEVELOPER ALONG WITH THE LANDOWNER. IT (SS) A NO. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176 AND ITA NO.56 6/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 9 (5) THE ABOVE TWO DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD ARE BINGING ON ALL THE REVENUE AUTHORITIE S FUNCTIONING UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL AS PER DECISION OF THE HONBLE M. P. HIGH COURT IN TH4E CA SE OF AGARWAL WAREHOUSING & LEASING LIMITED V/S. C. I. T. 257 ITR 235 (M. P.) THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING DOCUME NTS FOR EXAMINATION WHICH WERE RETURNED AT THE TIME OF LAST HEARING: (1) COPIES OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS (MEMORANDUM OF ARRANGEMENTS) (2) APPROVAL OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR PROJECT S WITH PLANS (3) REPORTS OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS IN FORM NO.10C CB (4) COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY COMPETENT AUTH ORITY IN RESPECT OF PROJECTS. 5 AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO RS.33,02,233/- DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E U/S 80 IB(10) OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER IN PARA 5.2 TO 5.5 OF HIS ORDER: 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF T HE LD. COUNSEL AS WELL AS THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. I H AVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATES IS SUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ALSO THE REPORTS OF THE CA IN FORM NO.10CCB. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT ONLY ON THE GRO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND THE APPRO VAL OF LOCAL AUTHORITY IS NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IN THE NAME OF THE LAND OWNERS AND THUS THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN I N SECTION 80IB (10) R. W. S. 80 IB (1), ARE NOT FULFILLED. HO WEVER, THIS ISSUE HAD ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE AHMEDABAD T RIBUNAL IT (SS) A NO. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176 AND ITA NO.56 6/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 10 IN THE CASE OF M/S. RADHE DEVELOPERS & ORS VS. I.T. O. & ORS 113 TTJ (AHD) 300. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WELL A WARE OF THIS DECISION BEFORE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER A S THE APPELLANT WAS ONE OF THE PARTIES TO THIS DECISION F OR THE A. Y.2003-04. THE AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IS CONSISTENTLY F OLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF M/S. RADHE DEVELOPERS. MY PREDECESSOR IN VARIOUS CASES OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT BY RELYING ON THIS DECISION. I HAVE ALSO RE QUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 15.10.2009 TO S TATE AS TO HOW THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF M/S. RADHE DEVELOPERS & ORS. VS. I. T. O. & ORS. 113 TTJ (AHD) 300 AND ITO VS. SHAKTI CORPORATION IN ITA NO.1503/AHD/2008. THE REPORT WAS CALLED FOR LATEST BY 26.10.2009. HOWEVER , THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER TILL TODAY. THE DEDUCTION UNDER ANY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT INCLUDING THE PROVI SIONS OF SEC. 80 IB(10) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED ONLY BY I GNORING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT CAN ONLY BE DISALLOWED IF, THE CONDITI ONS THEREIN ARE NOT FULFILLED. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FOR DENYING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OF THE ACT TO THE A PPELLANT IN HIS ORDER HAD ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE HONBLE A HMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. RADHE DEVELOPERS & ORS . VS.I.T.O. & ORS. 113 TTJ (AHD) 300 IN WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS ONE OF THE PARTIES FOR THE A. Y. 2003-04. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FINDING OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF M/S. RADHE DEVELOPERS & ORS. VS. ITO & ORS. 113 TTJ (AHD) 300 IS REPRODUCED HERE UND ER FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE: A BARE READING OF THIS PROVISIONS OF S. 80IB (10), AS THEY STOOD IN THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE REQUIRE MENTS FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION FOR HOUSING PROJECTS ARE THA T (I) THERE MUST BE AN UNDERTAKING DEVELOPING AND BUILDIN G HOUSING PROJECT; (II) SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS APPRO VED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY; (III) THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONS TRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT HAS COMMENCED ON OR AFTER 1 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998; (IV) THE HOUSING PROJECT IS ON A SIZ E OF A PLOT OF LAND WHICH HAS MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE; AN D (V) IT (SS) A NO. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176 AND ITA NO.56 6/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 11 THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT DEVELOPED AND BUILT HAS A BUIL T UP AREA OF 1000 SQ. FT. IF IT IS SITUATED IN DELHI AND MUMB AI OR WITHIN 25 KM. OF MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF THESE CITIES AN D 1500 SQ. FT. AT ANY OTHER PLACES. THERE IS NO OTHER COND ITION, WHICH IS TO BE COMPLIED WITH BY AN ASSESSEE FOR CLA IMING THE DEDUCTION ON PROFITS OF THE HOUSING PROJECT. TH E CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10), THERE IS A CONDITION PRECED ENT THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST BE OWNER OF THE LAND ON WHICH HOU SING PROJECT IS CONSTRUCTED HAS NO FORCE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUCH CONDITION AS APPEARING IN THE PROVISIONS OF TH E SECTION EXTRACTED ABOVE. A PLAIN READING OF SUB-SEC TION (10) OF SEC.80IB REVEALS AND MAKES IT EVIDENT THAT THERE MUST BE AN UNDERTAKING DEVELOPING AND BUILDING A HOUSING PROJECT AS APPROVED BY A LOCAL AUTHORITY. I T DOES NOT HAVE ANY FURTHER CONDITION THAT SUCH DEVELOPMEN T AND BUILDING OF THE HOUSING PROJECT SHOULD ALSO BE ON A LAND OWNED BY AN ASSESSEE UNDERTAKING. IT MIGHT BE TRUE THAT THE LAND BELONGS TO THE PERSONS WHO HAS ENTERED INT O AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE TO DEVELOP AND BUILD HOUSING PROJECT BUT ON A PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENT A S NARRATED ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING WORK HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN PURSUANCE OF A TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT AND IT IS NOT B Y THE LAND OWNERS. THEREFORE, THE MERE FACT THAT THE LAND -OWNER AND THE UNDERTAKING DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECT, ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. THE DEDUCTION WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO THE PERSON WHO IS DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECT AND NOT TO THE MERE OWNER THEREOF. HAVING ENTERED INTO AGREEM ENTS WITH LANDOWNERS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING THE HOUSING PROJECT, WAS OBVIOUSLY A CONTRACTOR BUT IT DOES NOT DEROGATE THE ASSESSEE FOR BEING A DEVELOPER, AS WEL L. THE TERM CONTRACTOR IS NOT ESSENTIALLY CONTRADICTORY TO THE TERM DEVELOPER. THE ASSESSEE IS A DEVELOPER, AND NOT A CONTRACTOR AS HELD BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE DEVELOPER IS NOT WORKING ON REMUNERATION FOR THE LANDOWNERS, BUT DEVELOPER IS WORKING FOR HIMSELF IN ORDER TO EXPLOIT THE POTENTIAL OF ITS BUSINESS IN HIS OWN INTEREST IT (SS) A NO. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176 AND ITA NO.56 6/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 12 AND, THEREFORE, OPTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RISKS ASSOCI ATED WITH THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF REAL ESTATE INCLUDIN G DEVELOPING AND BUILDING OF HOUSING PROJECTS. 5.3 THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF RA DHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) WAS ALSO ENDORSED BY THE HONBLE AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE UNREPORTED CASE OF ITO & ORS. VS. SHAKTI CORPORATION & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.11.20 08 IN ITA NO.1503/A/2008. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE AFORESA ID DECISION OF SHAKTI CORPORATION (SUPRA) IS REPRODUCED HERE UN DER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE: THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) AND ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE DOMINANT OVER THE LAND AND HAS DEVELOPED THE HOUSING PROJECT BY INCURRING ALL THE EXPENSES AND TAKING ALL THE RISKS INVOLVED THEREIN. WE MAY MENTION HERE THAT, IN OUR OPINION, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) WILL NOT APPLY IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT FOR A FIXED REMUNERATION MERELY AS A CONTRACTOR TO CONSTRUCT OR DEVELOP THE HOUSING PROJECT ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER. THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO IN THAT CASE WILL NOT ENTITLE THE DEVELOPER TO HAVE THE DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT AND ALL THE RISKS INVOLVED THEREIN WILL VEST WITH THE LANDOWNER ONLY. THE INTEREST OF THE DEVELOPER WILL BE RESTRICTED ONLY FOR THE FIXED REMUNERATION FOR WHICH HE WOULD BE RENDERING THE SERVICES. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) HAS NOT DEALT WITH SUCH SITUATION. THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS CANNOT BE APPLIED UNIVERSALLY WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE DEVELOPER ALONG WITH THE LANDOWNER. IN THE CASE OF SHAKTI CORPORATION SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF IT (SS) A NO. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176 AND ITA NO.56 6/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 13 THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND CRUX OF THE AGREEMENT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND AND HAS DEVELOPED THE HOUSING PROJECT AT ITS OWN, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10). THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF FAQIR CHAND GULATI (SUPRA) WILL NOT ASSIST THE REVENUE, AS THE AGREEMENT IS NOT SHARING OF THE CONSTRUCTED AREA. 5.4 IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT ARRANGEMENT THAT THE LAND OF THE PROJECT WAS NOT OWNED BY THE APPELLANT FIRM BUT BY M/S. NARAYAN ORGANISORS AND ACCORDINGLY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF REVENUE CODE, THEY HAVE OBTAINED THE NECESSARY APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT ARRANGEMENT THAT THE APPELLANT FIRM WAS NOT A MERE CONTRACTOR BUT WAS A DEVELOPER IN ITS TRUE SENSE AND THEREFORE, ELIGIBLE TO SHARE NOT ONLY PROFITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT BUT TO BEAR LOSSES ALSO. AS A DE VELOPER, THE APPELLANT FIRM HAD EXERCISED SUFFICIENT DOMINANCE O VER THE PROJECT AND THEY WERE NOT TO GET ANY FIXED REMUNE RATION ON THE BASIS OF ARRANGEMENT. THE LAND OWNERS WERE ELIGIBLE TO GET ONLY PRICE OF LAND AND NOT TO GET ANY SHARE IN THE DEVEL OPMENT PROFITS OF PROJECT. AS PER THE MEMORANDUM OF ARRANGEMENT, THE APPELLANT FIRM WAS TO SHARE NOT ONLY THE PROFITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT BUT WAS ALSO EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR TH E RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WERE EXAMINED BY THE HONBLE AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL FOR A. Y. 2003- 04 AND THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) WAS ALLOWED BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE REPORTED AS M/S. RADHE DEVELOP ERS & ORS. VS. I.T.O. & ORS. 113 TTJ (AHD) 330 WHEREIN THE APP ELLANT WAS ONE OF THE PARTIES. 5.5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IN PARA -5.2 TO PARA 5-4 AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE A. Y. 2003-04 AS AFORESAID (RADHE DEVELOPERS & ORS) AND A LSO THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHAKTI CORPORATI ON (SUPRA), I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ACQUIRED T HE IT (SS) A NO. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176 AND ITA NO.56 6/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 14 DOMINANCE OVER THE LAND AND HAD DEVELOPED THE HOUSI NG PROJECT BY INCURRING ALL THE EXPENSES AND TAKING AL L THE RISKS INVOLVED THEREIN. THE APPELLANT FIRM WAS NOT MERELY A CONTRACTOR OF THE LAND OWNER FOR FIXED REMUNERATION. THE LAND OWNERS WERE ELIGIBLE TO GET ONLY PRICE OF LAND AND NOT TO GET A NY SHARE IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROFIT OF PROJECT. THE APPELLANT HAD FU LFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SEC. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. T HEREFORE, THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO TH4E DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(1 0) OF THE ACT. HIS FINDING SO RECORDED IS CANCELLED AND DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT IS ALLOWED. THE ADDITION MADE FOR R S.33,02,233/- IS DELETED. THE THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDING LY ALLOWED. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT TH E ASSESSEE FIRM WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND WHICH WAS DEVELOPED BY IT AND THE NECESSARY APPROVAL WAS NOT IN ITS NAME AS THE SAME WAS OBTAINED BY THE LAND OWNERS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER GOING THR OUGH THE COPIES OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ARRANGEMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN T, APPROVAL OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR THE PROJECT/PLAN AND OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS HAS GIVEN HIS FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE F IRM WAS NOT A CONTRACTOR BUT A DEVELOPER IN ITS TRUE SENSE AND, T HEREFORE, WAS ELIGIBLE TO SHARE NOT ONLY THE PROFITS OF THE FIRM BUT TO BEAR THE LOSSES ALSO. AS A DEVELOPER, THE ASSESSEE FIRM EXERCISED S UFFICIENT DOMINANCE OVER THE PROJECT AND THEY WERE NOT TO GET ANY FIXED REMUNERATION ON THE BASIS OF ANY ARRANGEMENT. THE L AND OWNERS WERE TO GET ONLY THE PRICE OF THEIR LAND AND NOT TO GET ANY SHARE IN THE PROFIT OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. HE ALSO FOUND TH AT AS PER THE MEMORANDUM OF ARRANGEMENT, THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS TO GET NOT ONLY THE PROFITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BUT WAS ALSO RESPONSIBLE IT (SS) A NO. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176 AND ITA NO.56 6/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 15 WITH THE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PROJE CT. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. RADHE DEVELOPERS & ORS. (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHAKTI CORPORATI ON (SUPRA) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FULFILLED ALL THE CO NDITIONS AS LAID DOWN U/S 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSES SEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION UNDER THAT SECTION. 6.1 WE FURTHER FIND THAT DURING THE REGULAR ASSESSM ENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, ON THE SAME BASIS DISALLOW ANCE U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WAS MADE BY THE AO IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE. HOWEVER, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/ S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWED BY ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE DECISION O F M/S. RADHE DEVELOPERS & ORS. (SUPRA) WHERE THE ASSESSEE FIRM W AS ALSO A PARTY. THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. RA DHE DEVELOPERS & ORS. (SUPRA) HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 341 ITR 403 (GUJ). 6.2 THE AO HAD AGAIN DISALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF T HE ACT AS ON 31-05- 2006 A SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMI SES OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT D URING THE SEARCH NO MATERIAL OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS WAS SEIZED. MOREOVER, NO OTHER DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION WAS MADE EXCEPT DISALLOWING T HE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS P ASSED U/S 153C OF THE ACT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 . IT (SS) A NO. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176 AND ITA NO.56 6/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 16 6.4 SINCE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN REGULAR ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WE HEREBY UPHOLD THE ORDERS PAS SED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AR E DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21-09-2012 SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (D. K. TYAGI) JUDICIAL MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: DIRECT DICTATION ON 18-09-201 2 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 19-09-12 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: