2020 (8) TMI 707 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s. 80IB(10) - CIT- A deleted the addition - Revenue made out a case that the order of CIT(A) is not a speaking order - HELD THAT - Regarding speaking order allegation of the ld. DR, As AR submitted that the order of Town Planning Authority/Collector is longest with approx 80 pages and the facts and findings are discussed throughout the order of CIT(A). Para 5.3.3 cannot be read in isolation. In response, the ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the note furnished by the ld. AR may be sent to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after appreciating of the facts now given by the ld. DR. We deem it appropriate to remand this issue back to the file of CIT(A) for considering this issue afresh in the light of the submissions made by the parties. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15.

Analysis:
1. Assessment Year 2012-13:
- The case involved a partnership firm engaged in Development and Construction business. The issue revolved around the disallowance of the deduction u/s. 80IB(10) amounting to ?5,06,90,983 due to the non-completion of Building D as per the original plan. The CIT(A) allowed the claim based on liberal interpretation of the beneficial provision and the completion of four buildings fulfilling the criteria of Section 80IB(10).
- The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s order before the Tribunal, arguing discrepancies in the completion certificate and non-speaking nature of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication considering the submissions made by both parties. The appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2012-13 was allowed for statistical purposes.

2. Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15:
- The grounds for these years mirrored those of A.Y. 2012-13. Following the decision made for A.Y. 2012-13, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2014-15 for statistical purposes.

Conclusion:
- The Tribunal's decision focused on the interpretation of Section 80IB(10) and the completion status of the buildings in question. The remand for fresh adjudication in A.Y. 2012-13 indicated a meticulous approach to resolving discrepancies and ensuring a just outcome. The allowance of appeals for all three years on statistical grounds highlighted the uniformity in decision-making based on the precedent set in the initial assessment year.