9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en from an assessment order dated 27-12-2006 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) of the Act. The Grounds of appeal as raised by the Revenue read as under : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s.80IB(10) at ₹ 18,91,485/- by reckoning the eligible plot area exceeding 1 acre, i.e.6957.81 sq.mtrs. (as per Govt. value s report) whereas, as per the facts the original purchase of plot was 2684.25 sq.mtrs and after addition made thereto of area of 4273.56 sq.mtrs. and approval to each of the layout plan was sanctioned separately by the Talegaon Dabadhe Nagar Parishad vide No.NN/BP/KV/2188/04 dt. 02/08/2004 and No. NN/BP/KV/1678 dt. 19/05/2005. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s.80IB(10) at ₹ 18,91,485/- taking into consideration that the project was completed within the prescribed limit as per Sec.80IB(10)(a)(ii) of the I.T. Act when the project was commenced as per Ist approval by Talegaon Dabadhe Nagar Parishad on 31/01/2001 and completed on 06/06/2008 which should have been completed upto 31/03/2008. 3. On the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the separate parts was of an area exceeding 1 acre and therefore the assessee does not satisfy the condition contained in clause (b) to section 80IB(10) of the Act. 6. On this aspect the CIT(A) has negated the stand of the Assessing Officer by relying on his discussion in Para 8,9, 10 of his order dated 27-01-2011 for the A.Y.2006-07, which is the subject matter of appeal vide ITA No.509/PN/2011. The plea of assessee was that it had acquired development rights in respect of a single plot of land admeasuring 7265.53 sq.mtrs and that all the four parts constituted a single plot. In support assessee submitted copies of 7/12 extract of the land to show that it was a single plot which covered the 4 parts stated by the Assessing Officer. It was explained by the assessee that only for the purposes of architectural drawings and for identifying the phases of construction activity that the parts were shown separately in the construction plans referred by the Assessing Officer. So, however, it did not amount to a division of plot so as to examine the condition of 1 acre for each part separately. The assessee also contended that the road referred to by the Assessing Officer was an interna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was also invited to Page 27 of the Paper Book wherein is placed copy of the approved plan of the project which shows the total area of the plot at 7265.630 sq.mtrs. Thus, the order of the CIT(A) is ought to be defended on this point. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Section 80IB(10) of the Act provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking developing and building housing projects, subject to the conditions therein. The condition relevant for the present purposes is contained in clause (b) to section 80IB(10) which prescribes that the project is to be on the size of a plot of land which has a minimum area of 1 acre. The Assessing Officer examined the construction plan of the assessee and has noticed that the entire plot was divided into 4 parts namely, Part-A, Part-B, Part-C and a Road. Since the area for each of the part was less than 1 Acre he has construed that assessee does not meet with the requirements of the clause (b) to section 80IB(10) of the Act. 10. On the contrary the CIT(A) has noticed that the entire area of plot, i.e. 7265.63 sq.mtrs. (which is more than 1 Acre) has been acquired by the assessee in one go vide agreement dated 16-02-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... internal road and that it formed a part of the sanctioned plan and that it was not under the ownership of the local authority. Evidently, the CIT(A) was justified in its rejecting the assertion of the Assessing Officer that the ownership of the road was with the Municipal Corporation. Even in the course of hearing before us it was specifically enquired as to on what basis the Assessing Officer observed that the ownership of the road was with Municipal Corporation. No material has been referred to in this regard and in this view of the matter we are in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A). Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion and on the basis of the material and evidence on record we find that the CIT(A) was justified in considering the area of the plot at 7265.63 sq.mtrs for the purpose of examining the condition of 1 Acre contained in clause (b) to section 80IB(10) of the Act. As a result, the stand of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 12. Now we may take up Ground of appeal No.2. In this regard the learned Departmental Representative pointed out a typographical error in the stated Ground of appeal to the effect that instead of the date 31-03-2001 the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the assessee, the relevant occupancy certificates issued by the Talegaon Dabhade Nagar Parishad, Dist. Pune have been furnished to substantiate that construction of the project was complete much earlier than 31-03-2008. The copies of such occupancy certificates issued by the prescribed local authority, i.e., Talegaon Dabhade Nagar Parishad, Dist. Pune furnished on record bears out the statement of the assessee. Therefore, we find that the assessee is justified in canvassing that the construction of Shreerang Vihar project was completed within the time stipulated in section 80IB(10)(a)(i). Accordingly, Ground of appeal No.2 is dismissed. 16. In so far as Ground of appeal No. 3 is concerned, the learned Departmental Representative pointed out that the same relates to the Vrundavan project and so far as the A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2005-06 is concerned the assessee did not make any claim for deduction u/s.80IB(10) with respect to the said project and therefore such Ground of appeal is misconceived for the A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2005-06. 17. In view of the aforesaid, Ground of appeal No.3 for the A.Y. 2004-05 is dismissed. 18. In so far as the appeals for A.Ys. 2002-03, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
