9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1118 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s.80lB (10) - pro-rata deduction - AO noted that there was no record of the projects being completed by 31 03.2008 - HELD THAT - As decided in assessee's own case 2019 (3) TMI 682 - ITAT HYDERABAD assessee has only submitted the letters before CIT(A) to claim the deduction in pro-rata basis. As per the findings of ld. CIT(A), these letters do not give any details about the stage of completion, size of the flat to ascertain whether these projects satisfy the conditions specified in section 80IB(10). Therefore, we direct the AO to collect information about the stage of completion of the projects and size of the flats. If it is within the norms, AO should give pro-rata deduction u/s 80IB(10). This is accepted law as far as allowing pro-rata deduction u/s 80IB(10). With regard to completion certificates, it is enough that assessee files the completion certificate on block-wise or handing over proof to the flat owners. We direct the AO to decide the issue as per the above said directions and accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals. 2. Deduction claims under Section 80IB(10) for specific projects. 3. Requirement of completion certificates for availing deductions under Section 80IB(10). 4. Pro-rata deduction eligibility. 5. Remittance of case for reconsideration due to delay in filing appeal. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals: The assessee filed appeals with a delay of 128 days, citing the severe medical condition and subsequent surgery of their authorized representative (AR) as the reason. The Tribunal found the reason genuine and condoned the delay, allowing the appeals to be admitted for hearing and adjudication. 2. Deduction Claims Under Section 80IB(10) for Specific Projects:The assessee claimed deductions under Section 80IB(10) for projects named JP Arcade and JP Metropolis, which were disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on previous assessments from 2002-03 to 2008-09. The AO noted the lack of new information and applied the same conclusions for the current assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The CIT(A) partially upheld the AO’s decision, allowing deductions for JP Lakeview Phase-II and JP 1st Avenue but not for JP Arcadia and JP Metropolis due to incomplete information. The CIT(A) directed the AO to ascertain the amounts eligible for deduction from the Auditor's Report in Form 10CCB. 3. Requirement of Completion Certificates for Availing Deductions Under Section 80IB(10):The Revenue argued that the assessee did not obtain completion certificates within the specified time, and letters from Gram Panchayat and Municipal Authorities were not substitutes for the completion certificate required by the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal considered previous decisions, including those of the coordinate bench in the assessee’s own case for earlier years, and directed the AO to collect information about the stage of completion and size of the flats to determine eligibility for pro-rata deduction under Section 80IB(10). 4. Pro-rata Deduction Eligibility:The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where pro-rata deductions were allowed for completed units within a project, even if the entire project was not completed by the specified date. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow pro-rata deductions for eligible units, in line with the coordinate bench's decision in the assessee’s own case for earlier years. 5. Remittance of Case for Reconsideration Due to Delay in Filing Appeal:For the assessment year 2011-12, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 55 days in filing without an explanation. The Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A), directing them to provide the assessee with an opportunity to explain the delay and to admit the appeal as per law, disposing of it on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Conclusion:The appeals by the assessee for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 were allowed, and the appeals by the Revenue for the same years were dismissed. The appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 was allowed for statistical purposes, with directions for reconsideration by the CIT(A). Pronouncement:The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 15th May 2019.
|
