9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oject1 is suggestive and indicative of the fact that: the 'Housing project' should be broadly the same. Approval for a giver housing project at the first instance will not grant an indefeasible or vested right under Explanation-l(i) for a altogether new project. There should be some demonstrable and intense relationship between earlier approval obtained in respect of 'housing project' vis-a-vis subsequent approval. The law cannot be surpassed to grant relief. Nothing turns out on the use of the expression revised permission' by local authority. As noted, the approval for revises housing project has no rational connection with the first housing project for which the approval was initially taken. As per the express language prodigious benefit offered therein stands forfeited unless a housing project is approved by the local authority before 31/03/2008. In the instant case, the second approval taken for the housing project concerning high-rise building betrays the aforesaid condition outlined. This being so, the ratio of the decisions cited do not govern the issue even on most liberal and utmost considerations. Thus, the action of revenue is found to be in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s own case the similar issue on identical facts has been decided against the assessee by him vide his order dated 28-09-2015 for the assessment year 2011-12 2012-13, by dismissing the appeal of the appellant. In view of this, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal. However, none was attended on behalf of the assessee but a written submissions were filed from Shri Hiren M. Diwan, wherein it was submitted that in appellant s own case on identical facts, the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11, 2011-12 2012-13 were dismissed by the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad vide its consolidated order dated 13-06-2017 (copy filed). Therefore, the above grounds of appeal were placed reliance in written submissions. 6. Per contra, the ld. Sr. DR submitted the issue covered against the assessee by the order of the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material available on record. We find that the similar issue was arose in the case appeal for the AY.2010-11, 2011-12 in the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench vide its order dated 13-06-2017 in consolidated order in ITA No.2414/AHD/2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin four years from the end of the financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority. The major controversy revolves around the aspect as to whether the assessee in the instant case is deemed to have taken requisite approval prior to the out off date of 31/03/2008 or not. While the assessee claims that the project (for construction of row-houses) was first approved by local authority on 19/07/2006 which is much prior to the time limit specified under the provisions of the Act, the second approval was taken back in modification of the first approval subsequent to the cut off date is deemed approval in time owing to 'doctrine of relation back' as well as Explantion-l(i) of the incentive section. It is the case of the assessee that, notwithstanding the second approval taken subsequent to cut off date, it is merely continuation of the first approval. In terms of Explanation-l(i) to section 80IB(10), the date on which the housing project is deemed to have been approved is the date on which the building plan of such housing project is 'first approved' by the local authority. It is the contention on behalf of the assessee that since the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the construction plan and the validity of development permission expired in the absence of any renewal. The second approval cannot be construed as renewal of earlier plan in the absence of continuity. 11.4. As reiterated on behalf of the assessee, the first approval for the concerned housing project (for construction of row-houses) was obtained by the assessee on 19/07/2006 which is prior to the cut off date prescribed by the provision of section 80IB(10). After the application for approval from the local authority, the developer of the housing project stood changed from DMJ to the assessee. The assessee herein resubmitted a building plan for approval as styled 'revised plan' for construction of residential flats as high rise building rather than row-houses originally approved. Thus, ostensibly, the revised development plan is altogether different and no intimacy with the earlier plan. The complexion of the housing project has changed altogether. Therefore, we do not find any semblance of merit in the plea of the assessee about the continuity of the second approval qua the first approval for construction of the housing project. 11.5. We are alive to the fact that Expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... layout plan submitted by the assessee for residential high rise building. Nothing turns out on the use of the expression revised permission' by local authority. As noted, the approval for revises housing project has no rational connection with the first housing project for which the approval was initially taken. 12.1. We also take note of the various decisions cited on behalf of the assessee to seek liberal interpretation of section 80IB(10) in favour of the assessee. We are not persuaded. This issue for determination is ' essentially factual which is quite peculiar in this case. A statutory fetter in the form of time limit for approval of Housing project is enjoined which cannot be rescinded. As per the express language of section 80JB(10) of the Act, the prodigious benefit offered therein stands forfeited unless a housing project is approved by the local authority before 31/03/2008. In the instant case, the second approval taken for the housing project concerning high-rise building betrays the aforesaid condition outlined. This being so, the ratio of the decisions cited do not govern the issue even on most liberal and utmost considerations. Thus, the action of rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
