The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Baroda V. M/s. Green Associates, Baroda

ITSSA 85/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3617 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SU RENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 80IB

Judgement Text

IT(SS)A NOS. 84, 85 & 479/AHD/2016 DCIT VS GREEN ASSOCIATES A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND MAHAVIR PRASAD JM] IT(SS)A NOS. 84, 85 & 479/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 TO 2012-13 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX .....APPELLANT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA VS. GREEN ASSOCIATES .RESPONDENT 3 RD & 4 TH FLOOR, KOTHARI CHAMBERS, KOTHI ROAD, RAOPURA, BARODA 390 001 [PAN : AAHFG 4507 H APPEARANCES BY: SURENDRA KUMAR FOR THE APPELLANT SN SOPARKAR FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 13.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 13.02.2018 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, AM: 1. THESE THREE APPEALS CALL INTO QUESTION CORRECTNE SS OF THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 28 TH OCTOBER 2015, PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER O F ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 153C R.W.S. 153A AND 143(3) OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11, 2011-12 AND 2012-13. 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE APPELLANT, BARRING THE AMOUNTS IN DISPUTE, ARE THE SAME IN ALL THE APPEALS. THESE GRIEVANCES ARE AS FOLLOW S:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RE SPECT TO DISALLOWANCES OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE IT ACT, BY AMOUNTING TO RS.20,08,55,870/- (AY 2010-11), RS.29,12,24,774/- (AY 2011-12) & RS.12,33 ,65,008/- (AY 2012-13) LEVIED BY THE AO, BY IGNORING THE FACTS THAT THE AP PELLANTS HOUSING PROJECT IS PARTLY DEVELOPED AND BUILT BY THE ASSESSEE OWNED AN D LATER PART IS COMPLETED UNDER WORK CONTRACTS AWARDED BY PLOT PURCHASERS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE FACTS THAT ABOUT 70% OF THE SALE PROCEE DS OF PROJECT ARE WORK CONTRACTS RECEIPT AND NO ENTREPRENEURIAL AND INVEST MENT RISK HAS BEEN TAKEN BY IT(SS)A NOS. 84, 85 & 479/AHD/2016 DCIT VS GREEN ASSOCIATES A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 7 THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THEM THUS IT CANNOT BE H ELD THAT THE WHOLE PROJECT HAS BEEN PRIMARILY DEVELOPED AND BUILD BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS MERELY FOLLOWED THE ORDER PASSED BY A CO-ORDINA TE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-1 0, AND IT IS ON THIS BASIS THAT THE IMPUGNED RELIEF IS GRANTED BY THE CIT(A). IT HAS B EEN NOTED BY THE CIT(A) THAT ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE ASSESSMEN T YEARS ARE THE SIMILAR TO THE MATERIAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, AND LEARNED CIT-DR DOES NOT EVEN DISPUTE THE SAME. 4. LEARNED CIT-DR, HOWEVER, POINTS OUT THAT THE MAJ OR DISTINGUISHING FEATURE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEFORE US VIS-A-VIS ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-10 IS THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION, IN THIS CASE, WAS CARRIED OUT ON 09.08.2011. LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITS THAT N OTHING TURNS ON THE SEARCH OPERATIONS AS THE DISALLOWANCES UNDER SECTION 80IB, I.E SUBJECT MATTER OF THESE APPEALS, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SEARCH OPERATIONS OR MAT ERIAL GATHERED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS. 5. HAVING GIVEN OUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RI VAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE I SSUE IN THESE APPEALS IS SQUARELY COVERED BY TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 5 TH JANUARY 2015 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. WHILE UPHOLDING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAD OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A. O NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 29,32,078/- U/S. 80IB (10) OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. ON THE BAS IS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, A.O NOTED THAT THE APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCT ION OF THE PROJECT FOR WHICH DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED B Y VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN THE NAME OF SHRI AKSHAY KOTHARI AND ORS. AND WAS NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE LAND DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. HE WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT A PERSO N WHO DOES NOT HAVE LAND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A DEVELOPER EXCEPT AS AN AG ENT OR A CONTRACTOR. A.O WAS FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT THE ENTIRE RESPONSIBIL ITY TO EXECUTE THE HOUSING PROJECT AND ABIDE BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF IT S APPROVAL RIGHT FROM THE INCEPTION OF THE PROJECT TILL ITS COMPLETION RESTS WITH THE LAND OWNER. HE WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE ASSESSEE WAS NOT T HE OWNER OF THE LAND, IT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSES SEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) NOTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION O F HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T BE DENIED DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB(10) ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AND THE PERMISSIONS REGARDING THE P ROJECT WERE IN THE NAME OF ORIGINAL OWNERS BUT HE HOWEVER NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO SALE OF RESIDENTIAL IT(SS)A NOS. 84, 85 & 479/AHD/2016 DCIT VS GREEN ASSOCIATES A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 PAGE 3 OF 7 HOUSES BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE HOUSING PROJECT BUT T HERE WAS SALE OF DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL PLOTS WITH CONSTRUCTION UP TO THE PLINT H ONLY. HE WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS DECIDED TO SALE FULLY DEVELO PED RESIDENTIAL PLOTS ONLY AND COMPLETE REST OF THE WORK AS A CONTRACTOR OF THE PL OT OWNERS. HE WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ROLE OF THE ASSESSEE AS DEVELOPER AND BUILDER OF THE PROJECT GETS OVER AS SOON AS RESIDENTIAL PLOTS ARE SOLD TO INDIVIDUAL PURCHASERS WITH ALL THE RIGHTS IN THE PLOT. FURTHER A CONTRACTOR OF IND IVIDUAL PLOT OWNERS WHO IS CONSTRUCTING HOUSING CANNOT CLAIM THAT HE IS A DEVE LOPER AND BUILDER OF THE HOUSING PROJECT AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB(10). HE ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE DENIAL OF DEDUC TION UNDER 80IB(10) BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) , ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NARAYAN REALITY LTD. ITA NO. 2293/A/12 & 20 95/A/13 ORDER DATED 2.05.2014. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD, THE COPY OF TH E AFORESAID DECISION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE FACTS OF THE PRESE NT CASE ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR TO THAT OF NARAYAN REALITY, THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DE DUCTION BE ALLOWED. 6. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F A.O AND CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS DENI ED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) BY LD. CIT(A) FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT SOLD RESIDENTIAL HOUSES IN THE HOUSING PROJECT BUT HAD SOLD DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL PLOTS WITH CONSTRUCTION UP TO THE PLINTH ONLY AND THUS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS DEVELOPER OF HOUSING PROJECT BUT WAS A CONTRACTOR AND THEREFORE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS, IN THE CASE OF NARAYAN REALITY LTD. (SUPRA) THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON PERUSING THE ORDER OF CIT(A), IT IS SEEN THAT CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LA ND AND THE APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT NOT BEING IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE I S COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09. WE FURTHER FIND THAT CIT(A) HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED IN TO TWO AGREEMENTS NAMELY 'SALE DEED' FOR THE SALE OF LAND AND 'CONSTR UCTION AGREEMENT' FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THE UNIT AND THEREFORE ACCORDING T O HIM, THE ASSESSEE WAS A CONTRACTOR AND THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON U/S 801B(10). WE ALSO FIND THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SATSANG DEVELOPERS (ITA NO 1011, 2498 AND 1221 O F 2012 ORDER DATED 12.11.2013 HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION TO ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 4.2. IN ADDITION TO ABOVE TWO OBJECTIONS, THE ID .CIT (A) HAS RAISED ONE MORE OBJECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE LAND TO THE UNIT HOLDERS IT(SS)A NOS. 84, 85 & 479/AHD/2016 DCIT VS GREEN ASSOCIATES A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 PAGE 4 OF 7 SEPARATELY AND HAS DONE THE CONSTRUCTION OF UNITS U NDER SEPARATE AGREEMENT/CONTRACT AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(10) OF THE ACT BECAUSE AS PER L D.CIT(A), PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SALE OF LAND I S NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(10) OF THE ACT AND SIMILARLY, T HE PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IS NOT ELI GIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(10) BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS DOING THE CON STRUCTION AS A CONTRACTOR FOR A WORK AND NOT AS A BUILDER OR DEVEL OPER AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON U/S.80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. AGAINST THESE OBJECTIONS OF LD.CIT (A), THE AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. .................................... 5.2 REGARDING THE 3RD OBJECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS SOLD LAND TO THE UNIT HOLDERS SEPARATELY AND HAS DONE THE CONSTRUCTI ON UNITS UNDER A PROJECT AGREEMENT/CONTRACT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT I T IS A JOINT ACTIVITY ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT AND LAND SALE-DEED ARE EXECU TED SEPARATELY, BUT FOR THIS REASON ALONE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT A BUILDER OR A DEVELOPER. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE F OLLOWING TRIBUNAL DECISIONS:- SR. NO(S) DECISION IN THE CASE OF REPORTED IN.... 1 DCIT VS. SMR BUILDERS (P.)LTD (2012) 24 TAXMAN.CO M 194 (HYD) 2 SKY BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS. ITO (2011) 14 TAXMAN.COM 78 (INDORE) 3. M/S. VARDHMAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS VS. ITO ITA NO.559/IND/2010 DATED 09.05.2012 4 RAGHAVA ESTATES VS. DY. CIT ITA NOS. 248 & 49/VIZ AG/2009 DATED 04.08.2011 5.2. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF VARDHMAN BUIL DERS & DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO A SEPAR ATE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF LAND AND SEPARATE AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTIO N OF HOUSING ON SUCH LAND AND UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE THAT MERELY BECAUSE OF TWO SEPARATE AGREEMENTS , THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB (10) OF THE ACT CA NNOT BE DECLINED IF OTHER CONDITIONS ARE BEING SATISFIED. 5.3. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SMR BUILDERS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) ALSO, THE FACTS WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD FLATS IN A SEMI-FINISHED STAGE. IN THAT CASE, THE AO HAD NOTED THAT AS PER THE SALE-DEED, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS SOLD UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND WITH SUPER-STRUCTURE OF SEMI-FINISHED BUILT-UP AREA FOR A CERTAIN CONSIDERATION. THE AO HELD THAT THE SEMI-FINISHED S TRUCTURE HAS NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED AS A RESIDENTIAL UNIT. IT WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE AO IN THAT CASE THAT ON THE SAME DATE WHEN THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED, A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WAS ALSO ENTERED INTO WITH T HE TRANSFEREE FOR FURTHER CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAME FLATS BY THE BUILD ER COMPANY ITSELF. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE SI MILAR. HE ALSO POINTED IT(SS)A NOS. 84, 85 & 479/AHD/2016 DCIT VS GREEN ASSOCIATES A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 PAGE 5 OF 7 OUT THAT IN THAT CASE, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE STAND OF THE REVENUE WITH REGARD TO THE SEMIFINISHED CONDITION O F THE FLATS IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT IN AS MUCH AS WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE CON STRUCTED AND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS A RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE PURCHASED BY THE BUYER IS THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SPEC IFIED UNIT AND REGISTRATION OF FLAT IN SEMI-FINISHED CONDITION IS ONLY TO FACILITATE THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES AND AGREEMENT FOR DEVELO PMENT AND COMPLETION OF BALANCE WORK IN RELATION TO THE FLATS IS ONLY AN INCIDENTAL FORMALITY AND THIS CANNOT BE VIEWED AS FATAL TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ENTIRE WORK FROM THE STAGE OF THE COMMENCEMENT TO THE STAGE OF MAKING THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT HABITABLE HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY AND, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS EL IGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(L0) OF THE ACT. 9.2. NOW WE TAKE UP THE THIRD AND LAST OBJECTION OF ID.CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE LAND SEPARATELY AND UNDERTOOK THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AS PER A SEPARATE AGREEMENT AND, THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A BUILDER OR A DEVELOPER BUT A LAND DEALER AND CONTRA CTOR. IN THIS REGARD, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SQ UARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT INDORE B ENCH RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M/S.VARDHMAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS VS . ITO (SUPRA). IT IS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR A SALE OF LAND AND A SEPARATE AGRE EMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE ON THE LAND AND, THEREFOR E, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR. UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIB UNAL IN THAT CASE THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB ( 10) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DECLINED IF OTHER CONDITIONS ARE BEING SATISFIED . SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SMR BUILDERS (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) ALSO, TH E ASSESSEE SOLD THE LAND ALONG WITH SEMI- FINISHED STRUCTURE TO THE BUY ERS AND AS PER SEPARATE AGREEMENT, AGREED FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR COM PLETION OF BALANCE WORK. HENCE, THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE ALSO SIMILA R BECAUSE IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE LAND WAS SOLD SEPARATELY ALONG WITH PARTIAL AND UNFINISHED CONSTRUCTION OF FLATS AND, THEREAFTER, C ONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO TO CARRY OUT THE BALANCE CONSTRUCT ION WORK AND UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CA SE THAT SUCH AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION TO COMPLETE THE BALANCE WORK IS ONLY AN INCIDENTAL FACILITATION TO PROTECT INTEREST OF THE PARTIES AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF RAGHAVA ESTATES VS. DY.CIT (SUPRA) ON W HICH RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE ID.AR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR. IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE PLOTS SEPARATELY AN D THEREAFTER, CONSTRUCTED THE HOUSES AND UNDER THESE FACTS, THE R EVENUE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A MERE CONTRAC TOR AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON U/S.80-IB (10) OF THE ACT. THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT THE FACTS IN THAT C ASE WERE IDENTICAL. IN THAT CASE, IT WAS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD CHOSEN TO REGISTER THE PLOT IN THE NAME OF THE BUYER ON PA YMENT OF SPECIFIED IT(SS)A NOS. 84, 85 & 479/AHD/2016 DCIT VS GREEN ASSOCIATES A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 PAGE 6 OF 7 AMOUNT IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE COST SAVING AND TO ENSUR E RELIABILITY AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAD PROCEEDED TO CONSTRUCT THE HOUSE AS PER BUILDING PLAN OBTAINED IN THE NAME OF THE PLOT-OWNE RS ON PAYMENT OF SUBSEQUENT INSTALLMENTS. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DEVELOPED VARIOUS PUBLIC AMENITIES WITHIN THE PROJE CT. THEREAFTER, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT ON A TOTALITY OF A FA CT, THE TRIBUNAL IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN DEVELOPIN G AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECTS AS PER THE SCHEME PROVIDED IN SECT ION 80-IB (10) OF THE ACT. 9.3. SINCE THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE A RE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN ABOVE NOTED THREE TRIBUNAL DECISIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY DEFECT IN THE CONSTRUCTION IN THE PRESENT CASE AND HENCE RESP ECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS, WE DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO OTHER OBJECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) REGARDING A LLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE A.O TO GRANT THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 9.BEFORE US, THE REVENUE COULD DID NOT PLACE ANY CO NTRARY DECISION ON RECORD NOR COULD DISTINGUISH THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH WAS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE RE SPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF SATSANG DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) HOLD THAT ASSESS EE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10). THUS THIS GROUND OF ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED. 8. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF NARAYAN REALITY LTD. (SUPRA) THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL, AFTER PLACING RELIANCE ON THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED THEREIN DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE OF THE PRESENT CASE WITH THA T OF NARAYAN REALITY LTD. (SUPRA) NOR HAS BROUGHT ANY CONTRARY BINDING DECISI ON ON RECORD IN ITS SUPPORT. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW ING THE DECISION OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NARAYAN R EALITY (SUPRA) HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10). T HUS THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEWS SO EXPRESSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, AND HAVING NOTED THAT NO DISTINGUISHING FEATURES HAVE B EEN POINTED OUT, WE APPROVE THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR PRASAD PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 13 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018 **BT* IT(SS)A NOS. 84, 85 & 479/AHD/2016 DCIT VS GREEN ASSOCIATES A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 PAGE 7 OF 7 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: ... 13.02.2018... ORDER PREP ARED AS PER 3 PAGES MANUSCRIPT OF HONBLE AM, WHICH ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH..... 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 13.02.2018..... 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . P.S./P.S.: ... 13.02.2018.......... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT:..... 13.02.2018........ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK : ..... 13.02.2018................... 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK : 13.02.2018. 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: ......