9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Slum Redevelopment scheme. In the instant case, it is not shown that the assessee has not claimed relaxation of the conditions specified in clause (a) or (b) of section 80IB(10) of the Act by virtue of first proviso. Hence from this angle also, there is no requirement that the project of the assessee should be notified by CBDT. Whether the assessee was a developer or builder? - We agree with the view taken by ld CIT(A) that the agreement entered between the assessee and SRA should be considered as a whole in order to ascertain the status. CIT(A), on examination of the agreement in whole, has taken the view that the assessee cannot be considered as a mere contractor simply for the reason that the land was conveyed to the SRA, since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered by Ld CIT are debatable in nature, i.e., the view taken by the assessing officer for allowing deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act was a possible view. Accordingly as per the decision rendered in the case of Malabar Industrial Company [ 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] the impugned revision order is liable to be set aside, since the one of possible views taken by the AO would not render the assessment order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It is well settled proposition of law that the twin conditions specified in sec. 263 of the Act, viz., (a) assessment order is erroneous and (b) it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, should be shown as existing before passing revision order u/s 263 of the Act. Further, on merits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal assessment completed us 143(3) of the Act. However, in the assessment year 2007-08, the AO disallowed the claim on the following reasons:- (a) The Slum Redevelopment scheme has not been notified by the CBDT as per the provisions of sec. 80IB(10). (b) The assessee has handed over the land to the SRA before the commencement of project and hence the assessee can be considered as a Contractor and not Developer . (c) It appears that the project was not fully completed prior to 31.3.2008. 4. The Ld CIT(A) took the view that the notification of Slum Redevelopment Scheme by CBDT is required only in case of development of existing slum areas. In the instant case, the buildings were constructed as per scheme framed by SRA in an op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ducting proper examination. Accordingly he initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. The Ld CIT also noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by the AO for AY 2007-08 has since been allowed by Ld CIT(A). However, since the revenue did not accept the order of the first appellate authority and accordingly filed appeal before ITAT, the Ld CIT expressed the view that the revision order is permissible. Accordingly he directed the AO to withdraw the claim. The assessee has filed appeal challenging the revision order passed by Ld CIT for assessment year 2006-07. 6. The assessing officer passed the assessment order for AY 2006-07 giving effect to the order of Ld CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act and in that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed or not, does not arise. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the objection raised by Ld D.R. In the instant case, it is not shown that the assessee has not claimed relaxation of the conditions specified in clause (a) or (b) of section 80IB(10) of the Act by virtue of first proviso. Hence from this angle also, there is no requirement that the project of the assessee should be notified by CBDT. 9. With regard to the question as to whether the assessee was a developer or builder, we agree with the view taken by ld CIT(A) that the agreement entered between the assessee and SRA should be considered as a whole in order to ascertain the status. The Ld CIT(A), on examination of the agreement in whole, has taken the view that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2006-07 challenging the revision order passed by Ld CIT u/s 263 of the Act. The order passed by Ld CIT(A) for assessment year 2007-08 would show that the issues considered by Ld CIT are debatable in nature, i.e., the view taken by the assessing officer for allowing deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act was a possible view. Accordingly as per the decision rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company (243 ITR 83), the impugned revision order is liable to be set aside, since the one of possible views taken by the AO would not render the assessment order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It is well settled proposition of law that the twin conditions specified in se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
