2012 (10) TMI 803 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act - Held that - In the present case, the facts are peculiar. The assessee had not only completed the construction two years before the final date and had applied for BU permission. Such BU permission was not rejected on the ground that construction was not completed, but the some other technical ground. In that view of the matter, granting benefit of deduction cannot be held to be illegal - In favor of assessee. Not every condition of the statute can be seen as mandatory. - If substantial compliance thereof is established on record, in a given case, the court may take the view that minor deviation thereof would not vitiate the very purpose for which deduction was being made available.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act?
2. Whether the completion of the housing project within the statutory time frame was a mandatory requirement for claiming the deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The issue pertains to the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80-IB(10) of the Act on the development of a housing project. The Assessing Officer contended that the deduction was not justified as the assessee was not a developer and did not fulfill essential conditions for claiming the deduction. However, the Revenue's contention was overruled based on a previous court ruling that held similar circumstances did not disqualify the assessee from the benefit of deduction. Therefore, the first contention of the Revenue was turned down.

Issue 2:
Regarding the completion of the housing project within the statutory time frame, the Revenue argued that the assessee did not complete the project within the specified period, as the completion certificate was issued after the deadline. The Tribunal and CIT (Appeals) found that the completion requirement was not mandatory. The assessee had finished construction before the deadline, sold several units, and applied for BU permission, which was initially rejected for technical reasons but later granted. The Tribunal highlighted that substantial compliance with statutory requirements could be sufficient, and minor deviations may not invalidate the claim for deduction.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the Tax Appeal, emphasizing that the assessee had completed construction well before the deadline, and despite the delay in obtaining BU permission, the substantial compliance with the statutory provisions warranted granting the benefit of deduction.