2018 (10) TMI 1840 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction claimed u/s 80IB - assessee has not completed the project within the stipulated period of five years in order to avail deduction - Disallowance on account the project which was not completed within the stipulated time as discussed by the AO - HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2017 (1) TMI 445 - ITAT MUMBAI assessee has completed the project within five years from the end of the relevant year in which the approval was taken. Project is completed and occupation in respect of all the blocks that is A , B , C , D E are obtained within stipulated time limit of 31.3.2013 and there is no violation of any of the conditions mentioned in the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act. Accordingly we have no hesitation in allowing this claim of assessee and accordingly the same is allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act for a project not completed within stipulated time.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2013-14, where the Ld. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in business activities of developers and builders, initially declared a total income of ?70,62,93,650, later revising it to ?52,27,140 after claiming deduction under section 80IB of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80IB as the project was not completed within the stipulated time. However, the Ld. CIT (A) decided in favor of the assessee and directed the AO to allow the deduction and delete the addition.

2. The revenue appealed to the Tribunal challenging the decision of the Ld. CIT (A) on the grounds that the project, "Mayuresh Residency," was not completed within the stipulated time, as mentioned in the assessment order. The revenue also contended that the decision of the ITAT in the assessee's case for the A.Y. 2010-11, where completion within the stipulated time was upheld, was not accepted by the department and was under appeal before the High Court. The revenue argued that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in relying on the ITAT's decision without recording reasons of satisfaction for admitting new additional documents produced by the assessee.

3. The Departmental Representative (DR) reiterated the AO's stance that the project was not completed within the stipulated time, and the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of the claimed deduction. On the other hand, the counsel for the assessee argued that the project was completed before the due date, supported by certificates and approvals from the concerned authorities. The counsel contended that the assessee's case aligned with the ITAT's decision in the A.Y. 2010-11, and therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) rightly decided in favor of the assessee.

4. After considering the submissions and reviewing the orders of the authorities below, the Tribunal observed that the main issue raised by the revenue was the completion of the project within the stipulated period to avail deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that a coordinate Bench had previously ruled in favor of the assessee in similar cases for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12, stating that the project was completed within the required timeframe. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT (A)'s decision, citing the precedent set by the coordinate Bench in the assessee's previous cases, and dismissed the revenue's appeal, directing the AO to allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB of the Act.