2017 (3) TMI 483 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) - Held that - There is no dispute with regard to approval development and building housing project. As per the AO the assessee was required to furnish Completion Certificate of Project for claiming the deduction. The ld. CIT (A) has given finding that the assessee has furnished Completion Certificate in respect of 11 blocks out of 13 blocks i.e. except block A-5 & A-6. This fact is not controverted by the revenue. In respect of remaining two blocks the assessee had applied to the concerned authority and sent various reminders. It is observed by the ld.CIT (A) that as per the regulations governing the issuance of Completion Certificate in case the assessee makes an application and the Completion Certificate is not issued within 30 days from the receipt of such application the assessee would give a notice to the competent authority. After expiry of 15 days it would be deemed that completion certificate has been issued. This fact is also not controverted by the revenue by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore in our considered view the AO was not justified in declining the deduction on this ground. We therefore do not see any reason to interfere into the finding of ld. CIT (A). Another objection of the AO was that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 80IB(10(f). It is pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that this provision came into effect from w.e.f. 01.04.2010 whereas the flats were sold in between 01.04.2009 and 31.03.2010. Therefore the provisions were not applicable. The ld. CIT (A) has also recorded this fact in his order. The fact that the provisions of section 80IB(10(f) was introduced in the Statute Book with effect from 01.04.2010. Therefore the transactions related to prior period do not come within the ambit of newly introduced provision. - Decided in favour of assessee TDS u/s 194C - disallowance of expenses on account Interest expenses under section 40(a)(ia) - Held that - We find that the ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition by taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vector Shipping Services Ltd. (2013 (7) TMI 622 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT) also been followed by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Girdhari Lal Bargoti (2015 (11) TMI 746 - ITAT JAIPUR) thereby allowing the claim of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made by AO by disallowing deduction u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Deletion of addition made by AO by disallowing expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
3. Admittance of report u/s 10CCB as additional evidence without reasonable cause.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of addition made by AO by disallowing deduction u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue was whether the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. The AO disallowed the deduction on the grounds that the assessee did not obtain the requisite completion certificate from the local authority (UIT Kota) and allegedly violated section 80IB(10)(f) by selling multiple flats to persons belonging to the same family. The CIT (A) allowed the deduction, observing that the assessee had applied for and received completion certificates for 11 out of 13 blocks, with the remaining two blocks pending due to delays from the local authority despite repeated reminders. The CIT (A) also noted that the provisions of section 80IB(10)(f) were applicable only from 01.04.2010, whereas the assessment period was 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010, making the AO's application of this provision incorrect. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, emphasizing that the completion certificate was deemed to be issued as per the local regulations and that the provisions of section 80IB(10)(f) were not applicable for the relevant period.

2. Deletion of addition made by AO by disallowing expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act:
The second issue involved the disallowance of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. The AO disallowed ?2,50,000/- paid for designing work and ?33,908/- paid as interest to Tata Motor Finance. The CIT (A) deleted these disallowances, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vector Shipping Services Ltd., which held that section 40(a)(ia) applies to amounts payable and not to amounts already paid. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT (A)'s decision, noting that the payments were made before the end of the financial year and thus did not attract disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). Additionally, it was noted that the tax had been deducted at a lower rate in the case of the designing work, which did not lead to any loss to the revenue as the payee had paid the full tax on the receipt.

3. Admittance of report u/s 10CCB as additional evidence without reasonable cause:
In the appeal for the assessment year 2012-13, the AO objected to the CIT (A) admitting the report under section 10CCB as additional evidence without reasonable cause. The Tribunal, however, followed its decision for the assessment year 2010-11, where similar grounds were raised and rejected, thereby dismissing the revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2012-13 as well.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals of the revenue, affirming the CIT (A)'s decisions to allow the deduction under section 80IB(10), delete the disallowances under section 40(a)(ia), and admit the report under section 10CCB as additional evidence. The Tribunal emphasized compliance with the statutory provisions and the factual circumstances of the case, including the deemed issuance of the completion certificate and the non-applicability of section 80IB(10)(f) for the relevant period.