9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1085 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/sec. 80IB denied - no project completion certificate submitted - HELD THAT - In the instant case the assessee has filed the municipal tax assessment receipts in respect of flat buyers. The assessee has not furnished any evidence to establish that the project was completed in all respects as per the plan. The assessee not even made any effort to obtain the completion certificate from the GVMC for the reasons better known to him. The assessee has not made application before the GVMC with the check list as mentioned in the VUDA approval dated 07/11/2005 for the purpose of claiming deduction u/sec. 80IB(10). Without making application without complying with the terms and conditions it cannot be held that the project is completed in all respects. Therefore we are of the considered view that unless the completion certificate is furnished project cannot be held to be completed in all respects and the project completion certificate is mandatory. Accordingly we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. Condonation of delay - delay of 92 days in filing the appeal and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without giving opportunity to the assessee to explain the reasons - HELD THAT - CIT(A) ought to have given opportunity to the assessee to explain the reasons for filing the appeal beyond the due date and decided the issue of condonation of delay. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that it is against the principles of natural justice and hence the issue should be remitted back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to examine the reasons for delay in filing the appeal and to decide the issue of condonation of the delay and decide the appeal on merits depending on the outcome of condonation of delay. Thus the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Exparte appeal decided by CIT-A - HELD THAT - In the instant case appeal was decided exparte without giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. AR stated that the said notice dated 10/03/2018 was not served on the assessee. For a query from the Bench ld.DR did not place any evidence to show that the notice dated 10/03/2018 was served on the assessee. Therefore in the interest of justice we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is to be remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to give one more opportunity to the assessee and to pass the orders on merits. Accordingly this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of reassessment proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Validity of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Requirement of completion certificate for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10). 5. Delay in filing the appeal and its condonation. 6. Ex-parte decision by CIT(A) without giving an opportunity to the assessee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Reassessment Proceedings: The assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147, arguing that the reassessment was against the provisions of law and facts of the case. However, the Tribunal noted that the reassessment was initiated because the assessee did not file returns of income for subsequent years after claiming the deduction under Section 80IB(10). The reassessment was found to be in accordance with the law. 2. Validity of Notice under Section 148: The assessee contended that the notice under Section 148 was issued by DCIT, Range 3(1), and subsequently, the jurisdiction was transferred to ACIT, Range-5(1), who should have issued a fresh notice under Section 148. The Tribunal dismissed this ground as not pressed by the assessee during the hearing. 3. Deduction under Section 80IB(10): The main issue was the denial of deduction under Section 80IB(10) due to the non-submission of the completion certificate. The assessee argued that the project was completed within the specified period and that the municipal authorities did not issue the completion certificate despite the application. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the completion certificate is mandatory for claiming the deduction. 4. Requirement of Completion Certificate: The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the completion certificate is a mandatory requirement under Section 80IB(10). The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence of having completed the project and did not make adequate efforts to obtain the completion certificate from the local authorities. The Tribunal cited various case laws and CBDT instructions to support this requirement. 5. Delay in Filing the Appeal (ITA No. 108/VIZ/2019): There was a delay of 92 days in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay. The Tribunal found this to be against the principles of natural justice and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to examine the reasons for the delay and decide the appeal on merits. 6. Ex-parte Decision by CIT(A) (ITA No. 109/VIZ/2019): The appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence to show that the notice for the hearing was served on the assessee. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee an opportunity to present its case and decide the appeal on merits. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal related to the deduction under Section 80IB(10) due to the non-submission of the completion certificate. However, it allowed the appeals related to the delay in filing and the ex-parte decision for statistical purposes, remitting them back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
|
