2019 (1) TMI 1778 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - deduction u/s 80IB(10) - HELD THAT - Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had carried out the detailed inquiries about the satisfaction of the relevant condition. This was not a case where a claim was granted by the AO without inquiry. Tribunal noted that the stand of the assessee in this regard was supported by the decisions of the Tribunal on the same point. Inter alia on such grounds the appeal was allowed upon which the revenue has filed the present appeal. The materials on record would clearly suggest that the AO was conscious of the requirement of the area of the plot of land being not less than 1 acre. In this context, he had issued show cause notice to the assessee and called for his explanation. As noted, the assessee's explanation was twofold. Firstly, there was errors in the land documents which was corrected later on and second that the reduction in the area of land for road widening and such other public purposes should be ignored, in view of the fact that the assessee was allowed to utilize the full FSI. The assessing Officer accepted such explanations and granted the reduction. The view that the Assessing Officer adopted was at that time supported by the decisions of the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer having taken a plausible view, as is well settled to series of judgments of various High Courts and Supreme Court, the Commissioner could not have exercised Revisional power.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the ITAT erred in quashing the order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
2. Whether the ITAT erred in overlooking the requirement of minimum plot area for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10)?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the ITAT judgment, challenging the quashing of the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had examined if the assessee fulfilled conditions for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10) for a housing development project. The AO issued a show cause notice regarding the plot size, initially found to be less than 1 acre. The assessee rectified errors in land records, showing the area as 4050 sq. meters. However, part of the land was earmarked for public use, leaving only 3192 sq. meters for development. The AO granted the deduction, but the Commissioner revised the order under Section 263. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, noting that the AO had conducted detailed inquiries and granted the deduction after due consideration. The Tribunal found support for the assessee's stance in previous decisions. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the AO had taken a plausible view supported by precedents, and the Commissioner had no grounds for revision.

Issue 2:
The second issue pertained to the oversight of the minimum plot area requirement for claiming the deduction under Section 80IB(10). The Assessing Officer had considered the plot size issue, sought explanations from the assessee, and accepted the corrections made to the land records. The AO also acknowledged the assessee's argument that despite the reduction in available land due to public use, the Floor Space Index remained the same, allowing for the same construction capacity. The High Court noted that the AO's decision was in line with Tribunal precedents and established legal principles. The Court clarified that while dismissing the appeal, they did not provide a final opinion on the legal issue raised by the Commissioner. Ultimately, the Tax Appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee.