9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lats, etc. have been referred to in the course of hearing. We find that the said material was placed before the lower authorities and the same has not been repudiated at all. The denial of deduction has been solely on non-obtaining of completion certificate, which in the present case is not a requirement to be insisted upon in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. CHD Developers Ltd. (supra). - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.607/PN/2011 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2014 - SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Shri Srinivasan Respondent by : Shri P.S. Naik ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of CIT(A)-I, Pune dated 22.10.2010 relating to assessment year 2006-07 against order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Hon. CIT erred in holding assessee is not entitled to claim relief under section 80 IB(10)even though assessee satisfies all the requirement for grant of relief. 2. It may be held CIT(A) and A.O.'s orders are bad in l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... four years under the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act. As per the Assessing Officer, the assessee should have been furnished the project Completion Certificate from the authority, who had approved the project and in the absence of any certificate from the Pune Municipal Corporation, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had failed to complete the project within the stipulated time limit laid down in section 80IB(10) of the Act i.e. before 31.03.2008 and consequently, the deduction claimed at ₹ 7,79,060/- was denied to the assessee. 5. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer observing as under: 3.3.4. On careful consideration of the facts as well as the documents placed on record, it is observed that the appellant has been claiming that the project is complete and the Assessing Officer is of the view that the same was not complete before the due date i.e 31.3.2008. There is no dispute that submission of completion certificate issued from the local authority is a statutory requirement for the grant of the deduction. The claim of the appellant that the same should be allowed by treating the project as complete on the basis of other docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee under section 80IB(10) of the Act was for the first time rejected during the assessment year 2006-07 on the ground that the Completion Certificate from Pune Municipal Corporation had not been received within the prescribed time limit. The plea raised by the assessee was that since the Assessing Officer had accepted that the assessee had complied with all the conditions laid down under section 80IB(10) of the Act in assessment year 2005-06 and in the absence of Completion Certificate, there was no merit for denial of the same in the year under appeal. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that there was no denial of the fact that the project had been completed as the building was fully occupied and corporation tax notice had been issued to the owners. Further, all the ancillary certificates from various departments had been received and even the Completion Certificate from the Architect was received. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee explained the reasons as to why the Completion Certificate from the Pune Municipal Corporation was still pending. Reference was made to the civil suit filed in the case and our attentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the occupies which established the claim of the assessee as to completion of the project within the stipulated period. Though the completion certificate was not received from the Pune Municipal Corporation. However, the Architect s certificate along with the ancillary certificates received from the various Department to establish the completion of the project were filed before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). But the Assessing Officer in the absence of any certificate from the Pune Municipal Corporation observed that the assessee failed to complete the project within the stipulated time prescribed in section 80-IB(10) of the Act i.e. before 31.03.2008 and the deduction claimed u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act at ₹ 7,79,060/- was denied to the assessee, which was upheld by the CIT(A). 9. The explanation of the assessee in this regard was that the project had been completed within time limit i.e. 31.03.2008 as was evident from the fact that all the ancillary certificates from the various Departments had been received, copies of which are available at pages 20 to 24 of the Paper Book. The completion certificate was also received from Architect which is placed at page 19 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in the present appeal is that where the assessee had completed construction of the building, which had been occupied by the owners within the stipulated time provided under section 80-IB(10) of the Act, merely because the assessee had not received the completion certificate, the said claim under section 80- IB(10) of the Act can be denied to the assessee. 11. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. CHD Developers Ltd., (2014) 362 ITR 177 (Delhi) noted the provisions of section 80-IB(10) of the Act and the pre-amended provisions which were amended by Finance Act, 2000 w.e.f. 01.04.2001 and also the substitution by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2005 and held that in the pre-amended provisions when the plan was sanctioned/approved, there was no condition of production of completion certificate. The Hon ble High Court held that the it was a settled proposition of law that the law existing at the particular time would be applicable, unless and until it was specifically made retrospective by the legislature. The Hon ble High Court thus held that the substitution so made, is therefore, applicable prospectively and not retrospectively . In the facts of the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
