M/s. Surana Mutha Developers, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 11(4), Pune

MA 37/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0961 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-10-2018
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRI
• Assessee Lawyers: V L JAIN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E , , , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM M.A. NO. 37/PUN/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.475/PUN/2016) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S. SURANA MUTHA DEVELOPERS, 236, PATIL PLAZA, PARVATI, PUNE PAN : ABAFS9964J .. /APPLICANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(4), PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V.L. JAIN REVENUE BY : SHRI PANKAJ GARG / DATE OF HEARING : 26.10.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2018 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE APPL ICANT AGAINST THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 12.03.2018. 2. THE APPLICANT IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL DATED 12.03.2018 BY THE CONCLUSION GIVEN IN PARA NO.14 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDE R. THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF BUILDING NO.D. IN THIS REGARD, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE EA RLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9-10 WHEREIN THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WAS DENIE D TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT BUILDING NO.D WAS NOT COMPLETED BY 31.03.2011. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA NO.13 IN 2 MA NO.37/PUN/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 THE EARLIER ORDER HAD REFERRED TO THE SAME AND OBSE RVED THE STAND OF THE REVENUE THAT BUILDING NO.D WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE PRESCRIB ED TIME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE BEEN REFERRED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IN PARA NOS.10 TO 12 OF THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2018. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS THAT, THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER APPEAL HAD NOT GIVEN A FINDING THAT BUILDING NO. D WAS NOT SEPARATE AND IT WAS DEALING ONLY WITH PROFITS OF BUILDING NOS. A TO C. THE NEXT CONTENTION WAS THA T SINCE BUILDING NO. D WAS APPROVED IN MARCH, 2007, THEN THE PERIOD OF FIVE YE ARS AS PRESCRIBED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IB(10) WOULD END IN MARCH, 2012. 3. THE SAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOTED I N PARA NO.12 AND THEREAFTER, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA NO.14 HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF BUI LDING NO. D WHICH WAS NOT COMPLETED TILL 31.03.2011. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER HA D ALSO NOTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD CONSTRUCTED THE BUILDING UPTO 31.03.2011 WHEREAS AS AGAINST THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM PMC IT HAD POINTED OUT TH AT THE BUILDING WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED BY 31.03.2011. THE SAID ISSUE HAS ELABORATELY BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND HENCE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLI CATION MOVED BY THE APPLICANT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS FAILED TO ADDRESS THE GROUND RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE. IN ANY CASE THE PLEADINGS OF APPLICANT ON THE ISSUE AMOUNTS TO REVI EW OF ORDER AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS EARLIER ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2018. SATISH 3 MA NO.37/PUN/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)-4, PUNE. 4. THE PR.CIT-3, PUNE. 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE.