2022 (9) TMI 1033 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IB - deduction claim pertains to the assessee s Green Lands residential project at Rahatani, Pune - HELD THAT - We have gone through the site plan with the able assistance of both the parties. It emerges that the assessee has only completed C to F wings which could hardly be termed as habitable in absence of compound walls, sewage treatment plant, drainage and parking etc. Even a single residential tower could be taken as an eligible housing project and therefore, these four wings ought to be treated as independent housing projects eligible for 80IB(10) deduction on stand-alone basis. All these assessee s arguments failed to evoke our concurrence. We wish to clarify here that recent decisions in Pr.CIT Vs. Wipro Limited 2022 (7) TMI 560 - SUPREME COURT , Commissioner of Customs Vs.M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company 2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT have settled the law that provisions in a taxing statute; including deductions, ought to be strictly interpreted. We keep in mind this settled proposition and note that their lordships in Vandana Properties 2012 (4) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT had come across an instance wherein all the project amenities had already been completed (in towers A to D) before the said assessee sought 80IB(10) qua E building as the eligible residential project. We reiterate that the factual position is just the opposite before us since this taxpayer has failed to prove that its C to F wings had been completed along with all the foregoing amenities; before the date of part completion certificate dated 29-03-2012 (supra). AR sought to draw support from the Municipal Corporation s subsequent approval to the completed project on 28-07-2014 that the assessee had duly complied with all the requirements of the entire project. We are afraid that this latter completion would hardly help the assessee once he is supposed to complete C to F wings to make them habitable before 29-03-2012 only. We thus find merit in the Revenue s sole substantive grievance seeking to revive this 80IB(10) disallowance pertaining to Green Lands project - It s instant first appeal succeeds.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Section 80IB(10) Deduction Claim for AY 2012-13
2. Pro-rata Deduction for Partially Completed Projects
3. Violation of Section 80IB(10)(f)
4. Completion of Project Amenities
5. Subsequent Approval by Municipal Corporation

Detailed Analysis:

1. Section 80IB(10) Deduction Claim for AY 2012-13:
The primary issue revolves around the deduction claim under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim of Rs.10,73,04,401/- related to the "Green Lands" residential project at Rahatani, Pune, on the grounds that the project was not completed by the stipulated date of 31.03.2012. The assessee argued that it completed four buildings (C to F) by the deadline and sought a proportionate deduction for these buildings.

2. Pro-rata Deduction for Partially Completed Projects:
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim for pro-rata deduction based on the completion of buildings C, D, E, and F, referencing the decision in the case of Om Associates (ITA No.438/PUN/2017). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee completed 108 flats and obtained the necessary completion certificates. The Tribunal emphasized that deduction is allowable on a pro-rata basis for the completed part of the project.

3. Violation of Section 80IB(10)(f):
The Assessing Officer also disallowed the deduction due to the violation of Section 80IB(10)(f), which prohibits the allotment of more than one residential unit to the same individual, their spouse, or minor children. The assessee had allotted two flats to a married couple, violating this provision. The CIT(A) and Tribunal, following the decision in the case of M/s. Namrata Developers (ITA No.1975/PUN/2016), held that the assessee is entitled to a pro-rata deduction, excluding the profits from the flats allotted to the spouses.

4. Completion of Project Amenities:
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to complete essential project amenities such as compound walls, sewage treatment plant, drainage, and parking by the stipulated date. The completion certificate dated 29-03-2012 indicated that only buildings C to F were completed, but without necessary amenities, making them uninhabitable. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in Pr.CIT Vs. Wipro Limited and other cases, emphasizing the need for strict interpretation of tax provisions and deductions.

5. Subsequent Approval by Municipal Corporation:
The assessee argued that the subsequent approval by the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation on 28-07-2014 should validate the completion of the project. However, the Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that the approval came after the stipulated date, and the project must have been completed by 29-03-2012 to qualify for the deduction.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal ITA No.576/PUN/2020, disallowing the 80IB(10) deduction for the "Green Lands" project due to incomplete amenities by the stipulated date. The Revenue's latter appeals IT(SS)A Nos.02 & 03/PUN/2021 were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits regarding the deduction claims for buildings A, B, and G. The Tribunal emphasized the need for strict compliance with the completion requirements under Section 80IB(10).