9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 653 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB - eligible housing project - basic condition of obtaining the approval from the local authority for housing project unfulfilled - HELD THAT - The instant case is not case involving some alterations in the building plan at a later stage but is rather a case where the first building plan approved within the cut off limit has been totally obliterated and stands replaced by building plan. The development permission towards the impugned building plan was applied and taken subsequent to the cut off date. In the absence of any continuity or integrity between the initial approval and subsequent approval,the date of first approval within cut off limit cannot be reckoned for the purposes of second approval. The basic condition of obtaining the approval from the local authority for housing project in specified time limit thus remains unfulfilled for the housing project in question. The housing project in Explanation-l(i) is qualified and punctuated by implicit condition. The use of word 'the' preceding the; expression 'Housing project1 is suggestive and indicative of the fact that the 'Housing project' should be broadly the same. Approval for a giver housing project at the first instance will not grant an indefeasible or vested right under Explanation-l(i) for a altogether new project. There should be some demonstrable and intense relationship between earlier approval obtained in respect of 'housing project' vis-a-vis subsequent approval. The law cannot be surpassed to grant relief. Nothing turns out on the use of the expression revised permission' by local authority. As noted, the approval for revises housing project has no rational connection with the first housing project for which the approval was initially taken. As per the express language prodigious benefit offered therein stands forfeited unless a housing project is approved by the local authority before 31/03/2008. In the instant case, the second approval taken for the housing project concerning high-rise building betrays the aforesaid condition outlined. This being so, the ratio of the decisions cited do not govern the issue even on most liberal and utmost considerations. Thus, the action of revenue is found to be in accord with mandate of law. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act for an eligible housing project. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IB(10): The primary issue in this appeal concerns the rejection of the Assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, amounting to ?95,22,022/-, related to an eligible housing project. Facts and Background: The Assessee, engaged in the business of building and developing under the name M/s. K.G. Developers, constructed a high-rise residential building named "Sai KG Flats." The Assessee filed a return of income on 27-09-2013, showing a total income of ?4,33,950/- after claiming a deduction under Section 80IB(10) amounting to ?95,22,022/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) scrutinized the claim and found that the housing project was approved on 16-03-2009, which was after the cut-off date of 31-03-2008, making the Assessee ineligible for the deduction. CIT(A) Findings: The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] noted that the original plan was approved on 19-07-2006 for constructing 22 row houses, which was valid until 18-07-2007. Subsequently, the Assessee applied for a revised development plan for high-rise residential flats on 26-11-2008, receiving approval on 16-03-2009. The CIT(A) held that since the approval for the revised project came after 31-03-2008, the Assessee was not eligible for the deduction under Section 80IB(10). The CIT(A) also referenced similar decisions in the Assessee's previous cases for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, where the appeals were dismissed. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed the rival submissions and relevant materials, noting that similar issues arose in the Assessee's appeals for assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13, which were decided against the Assessee by the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench. The Tribunal reproduced paragraphs 11 to 13 from the earlier decision, which emphasized the following points: - Legal Framework: Section 80IB(10) mandates that the housing project must be approved by the local authority before 31-03-2008. The Assessee argued that the initial approval in 2006 for row houses should be considered under the 'doctrine of relation back' and Explanation-1(i) of Section 80IB(10), suggesting continuity with the revised approval in 2009. - Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the initial approval was for a different project (row houses) and obtained by another developer. The revised approval for high-rise buildings in 2009 was a new project, not a continuation of the earlier one. - Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal noted that the revised plan was fundamentally different from the initial plan, with no continuity between the two. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that the revised approval did not meet the condition of being approved before 31-03-2008. The Tribunal also highlighted that the term 'housing project' in Explanation-1(i) implies the same project, and the revised plan did not qualify as a continuation of the initial project. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Assessee's revised housing project did not meet the eligibility criteria for deduction under Section 80IB(10) as the approval was obtained after the stipulated cut-off date. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. Result: The appeal of the Assessee was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 13-02-2020.
|
