TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate is not required for the project which are approved before 01.04.2005, deduction cannot be allowed simply on legal principles without verifying the facts - Since the fact that project was completed before 31.03.2008 could not be verified, the AO is directed to examine the issue and allow deduction if assessee proves that it had completed the project before 31.03.2008 – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA. No. 206/Hyd/2012 - - - Dated:- 6-8-2014 - Shri B. Ramakotaiah And Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. G. Kalyan Das For the Respondent : Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram ORDER Per B. Ramakotaiah, A.M. This is an appeal by assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-V, Hyderabad dated 05.12.2011 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 1500 sq. feet. However, A.O. having noticed variation in the approved plan to that of sale deeds i.e., approved plan being two bed room house whereas, the sale deed contains three bed room house asked for completion certificate of the project. Assessee submitted that an application made to GHMC on the certificate by the Architect that the project was completed before 31.03.2008, filed the letter and certificate by architect. Not satisfied with the other evidence furnished, in the absence of completion certificate from the authorities, A.O. disallowed deduction under section 80IB. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee submitted that it has furnished all relevant evidences including the application made to GHMC for issuance of certificate o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the Act, there is no necessity to furnish completion certificate of housing project. Therefore, A.O. is not correct in denying the deduction under section 80IB(10). 5. Ld. D.R. however, referred to the observations of the A.O. that the plans approved were deviated and assessee has constructed 3 bed room apartments whereas the approved plan therein single and double bed room apartments were stated. Moreover, it is not known why GHMC has not issued completion certificate and therefore, the insistence on completion certificate. DR relied on the decision of ITAT in M/s. Sainath Estates 142 ITD 370 that furnishing of completion certificate is mandatory consequent to the amendment to the Act. 6. We have considered the rival submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f completion certif icate from a local authority is mandatory to prove completion of project in view of Explanation (ii) to clause (a) of section 80IB(10) for entitling the assessee to claim deduction under the said provision. However, in the facts of the present case, as the housing project of the assessee is approved prior to 01/04/2005 by applying the law laid down by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. CHD Developers Ltd., ITA No. 298 of 2013, dated January 22, 2014 assessee is not required to furnish completion certif icate in terms with Explanation (ii) to clause (a) of section 80IB(10). Therefore, the Assessing Off icer cannot insist upon the assessee to furnish the completion certif icate from the local authority for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o claim deduction under section 80IB(10). Therefore, these two orders have been given in two different fact conditions. 8. Coming to the present case, the project was approved before 01.04.2005 and assessee submits that it has completed the building on 31.03.2008. Therefore, on principles of law, assessee need not furnish the completion certificate. However, the matter does not end there. As opined by the A.O. there were deviations from the plan. As seen from the statements by the assessee, assessee has incurred losses in the next two years when assessee stated to have sold the finished apartments. We are not sure whether assessee has incurred some more expenditure on the project and sold the same or incurred losses on sale of so called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|