9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct behind the introduction as explained by the Memorandum explaining the provisions is that the objective of the tax benefit for housing projects was to build housing stock for low and medium income households by ensuring the size of the residential unit. It was circumvented by the developers by entering into agreement to sell multiple adjacent units to a single buyer. Accordingly the new clause was inserted to provide that the undertaking which develops and builds the housing project shall not be allowed to allot more than one residential unit in the housing project to the same person not being an individual and where the person is an individual, no other residential unit in such housing project to spouse or minor children of such individual, to HUF in which the individual is a karta. In the present case at the time of making sale/booking a unit and for complying with the requirement of clause (e) and (f), the assessee is required to exercise normal due diligence expected of a normal businessman and proceed on the basis of the documents/information furnished by the other person and is not supposed to act like a detective and microscopically investigate and go behind the documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f) of section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the reason that the appellant had sold Row House no. 38 and 39 to husband and wife. The honourable CIT(A) allowed the proportionate deduction under section 80IB(10) denying the deduction in respect of profit derived from the sale of Row House no. 38 and 39. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the honourable CIT(A) erred and is not justified in denying the deduction in respect of profits derived from Row House no. 38 and 39 without appreciating the fact that The appellant firm sold the Row House no. 38 and 39 to the purchasers under the bonafide impression that the purchasers are not related to each other as husband and wife The purchasers misrepresented and misguided the appellant firm by concealing/hiding their identity and getting the agreement registered in different non existent names The purchasers - Jeet Kaur Rohida got the agreement registered in her old/non existent name and making fraudulent representation even before the Registering Authority. The appellant hereby requests to kindly allow the deduction in respect of House No.38 and 39 and oblige. 4. On the other hand, the grounds raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e two purchasers were not related to each other were not found acceptable to the AO. AO was of the view that for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, the assessee is required to cumulatively fulfill all the required conditions stipulated in clauses (a) to (f) of Sec.80(IB)(10) of the Act and non-fulfillment of even one clause would entail disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. AO was of the view that the object behind the introduction of clauses (e) and (f) of Sec.80IB(10) of the Act by Finance Act, 2009 was to put an end to the practice of allotting more than one unit in a project to closely related persons/entities. He concluded that assessee has breached the condition laid down in clasue (f) of Sec.80IB(10) of the Act and hence was not eligible for deduction. He accordingly denied the claim of deduction of ₹ 8,35,95,698/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 22.3.2015 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-6/Addl. CIT. Rg-8/173/13-14) upheld the order of AO in denying the deduction for violation of clause (f) of Sec.80IB(10) of the Act but however granted partial relief by limiting the denial of deduction u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of Income6 tax Act with such a huge tax implication, the fact remains that conditions stipulated in Sec. 80IB(10)(f) of Income-tax Act have been breached by lack of due diligence on the part of the appellant. One may also say that of all the Sale Deeds why the appellant would have submitted the copies of these two Sale Deeds to the Assessing Officer as sample copies if there was complicity on behalf of the appellant firm, but that in itself will not absolve the appellant from lack of due diligence. May be the appellant could have exercise more precaution by way of asking for affidavit in this regard. There appears to be clear case of misrepresentation on the part of allotees of Unit No. 38 39, but the appellant cannot take shelter behind such misrepresentation without caring for due diligence on this account as stipulated in the Act. If the appellant intends to avail deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of Income-tax Act, it is supposed to put systems in place so that conditions stipulated in the Section are not violated to jeopardize it's claim of deduction. Therefore, considering the totality of facts, I do not find any merit in the ground taken by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant portion of the order is reproduced as under: . 16. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts of the case leading to violation of clause (f) of Sec.80IB(10) of Incometax Act and also relying upon the above referred decision of Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in the case of Pharande Developers(supra), the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of Income-tax Act in relation to Sukhwani Oasis project by limiting the denial only to the profits in respect of Row houses No. 38 39 where conditions of clause (f) of Sec. 80IB(10) of Income-tax Act have been breached. For the remaining project the Assessing Officer is directed to allow deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of Income-tax Act. Thus, the ground is partly allowed. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. Before us, Ld AR reiterated the submissions made before AO and Ld.CIT(A) and further submitted that there is no dispute as far the compliance of conditions stipulated in clauses (a) to (d) of Sec.80IB(10) of the Act are concerned. The only issue is with respect to clause (f) of Sec.80IB(10) on account of sale of two adjacent row houses bearing numbers 38 and 39 as they have been pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. On the issue of proportionate deduction, we also find that Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Arun Excello Foundations (P.) Ltd [2013] 29 taxmann.com 149 (Madras) has approved the principle of proportionate deduction to the extent the assessee has complied with the provisions of Sec.80IB(10) of the Act. Following the aforesaid decision of Hon ble Madras High Court we are of the view that the assessee cannot be denied the deduction for the complete housing project and therefore find no fault in the order of Ld.CIT(A) and thus the grounds of Revenue are dismissed. 9. On the issue of denial of deduction u/s 80IB(10) on account of non compliance of the condition stipulated in clause (f) to Sec. 80IB(10) of the Act, clauses (e) and (f) were inserted to Sec.80IB(10) by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f 01.04.2010. The object behind the introduction as explained by the Memorandum explaining the provisions is that the objective of the tax benefit for housing projects was to build housing stock for low and medium income households by ensuring the size of the residential unit. It was circumvented by the developers by entering into agreement to sell multiple adjacent units to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
