ITO, Pune v. M/s KUNDAN REAL ESTATE, Pune

ITA 1462/PUN/2013 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2015 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 146224514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAGFK5996F
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1462/PUN/2013
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Pune
Respondent M/s KUNDAN REAL ESTATE, Pune
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 29-04-2015
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 10-07-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 1461 & 1462/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(2) PUNE .. APPELLANT VS. M/S. KUNDAN REAL ESTATE 206 CHADHA MANSION MUMBAI PUNE ROAD KHARALWADI PIMPRI PUNE-411018 .. RESPONDENT PAN NO.AAGFK5996F ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RISHI LODHA REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH DAMOR DATE OF HEARING : 20-04-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-04-2015 ORDER PER R.K.PANDA AM : THE ABOVE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRE CTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 03-04-2013 OF TH E CIT(A)-V PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. SINCE I DENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THES E APPEALS THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THESE WERE H EARD TOGETHER AND BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2 2. WE FIRST TAKE UP ITA NO. 1461/PN/2013 AS THE LEA D CASE. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDER AND LAND DEVELOP ER. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR O N 27-09-2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.35 75 910/- AFTER CLAI MING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) AT RS.85 06 750/-. THIS RETURN WAS P ROCESSED U/S. 143(1). SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE FIRM FILED REVI SED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30-09-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1 20 82 660/-. 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON HAS SHOWN RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF FLATS IN RESPECT OF ITS PROJECT KUNDAN ESTATE AT S. NO. 61/2+3+4+5+6 CTS NO. 773 PIMPALE SAUDAGAR PUNE. THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF BUILDING HAVING 126 FLATS AND 13 ROWS HOUSES. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/ S. 80IB(10) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 AT RS.85 06 750/- AS PER ORIGINA L RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE REVISED RETURN FILED ON 30-09-2009 THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF T HE ACT. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTI ON CONDUCTED U/S. 133A OF ACT ON 19-09-2008 IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE O RIGINAL PLAN WAS FIRST APPROVED BY PCMC ON 23-06-2003. ON QUERY IT WAS ASCERTAINED THAT THE FIRM HAD PURCHASED THE LAND FO R THE PROJECT FROM SHRI. S. B. PATIL ON 09-07-2004 ADMEASURING 84 R. SHRI. S. B. PATIL HAD EARLIER SUBMITTED PLAN ON 23-06-2003 TO PCMC. T HE ASSESSEE FIRM PURCHASED ADJACENT LAND OF 20 R FROM SAME PERS ON AND GOT BOTH THE LANDS COMBINED AND REVISED PLAN WAS SUBMIT TED FOR 3 APPROVAL BEFORE PCMC AUTHORITIES WHICH APPROVED TH E PLAN ON 31-07-2004. THE SURVEY TEAM WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SI NCE THE PLAN WAS FIRST APPROVED ON 23-06-2003 THE PROJECT WAS R EQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED BY 31-03-2008. SINCE OCCUPATION CERTIFI CATE WAS NOT ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY 31-03-2008 THE SURVEY TE AM QUESTIONED THE PARTNER ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND STATEMENT OF SHRI. S. K. CHADDHA PARTNER W AS RECORDED. IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 18 SHRI. CHADDHA OFFERED TO PAY TAX IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 80IB(10) OF ACT S UBJECT TO HIS RIGHT OF FILING APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY REVISED RETURN WAS FILED ON 30-09-2009 IN WHICH CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10 ) AMOUNTING TO RS.85 06 750/- WAS WITHDRAWN. HOWEVER DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(1 0) OF THE ACT. 2.2 THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAI MED SUCH DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT DURING THE ASSES SMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 AND THIS IS THE THIRD YEAR OF C LAIM AND AS SUCH THE FACTS OF THE CASE REMAINED THE SAME AS PER LAST 2 YEARS. HE OBSERVED THAT THE PLAN DATED 31-07-2004 HAS BEEN SH OWN AS THE DATE OF APPROVAL BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY IN THE FORM NO. 10CCB ATTACHED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. HE OBSERVED THAT THE PLAN SANCTIONED ON 31-07-2004 VIDE NO. BP/SAUDAGAR/26/04 IS A REVISED PLAN TO THE EARLIER SANCTIONED PLAN VIDE NO. BP/PS AUDA/15/03 DATED 23-06-2003. BUT IN FORM NO. 10CCB THE DATE O F COMMENCEMENT WAS SHOWN AS 31-07-2004. REFERRING TO THE 4 EXPLANTION OF SUB-CLAUSE (A) OF SEC. 80IB(10) OF TH E ACT THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT IS TO BE TAKEN AS THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF FIRST PLAN ISS UED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WITH THE PCMC ON 23-06-2003. THEREFORE THE PROJECT WAS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 31-03-200 8 AND COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THIS PROJECT W AS MANDATORY TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WITH THE PCMC. H OWEVER IN THE INSTANT CASE THE PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETED ON OR BE FORE 31-03-2008 THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULFILLED THE CONDIT IONS PRESCRIBED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE OUTCOME OF THE SURVEY ACTION U/S. 133A OF THE ACT. DURING THE SAID SURVEY ACTION THE PARTNER HAD AGREED TO WITHDRAW TH E CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. REJECTING THE VARIOUS EX PLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDU CTION OF RS.85 06 750/- U/S. 80IB(10) MADE BY THE ASSESSEE I N RESPECT OF ITS PROJECT KUNDAN ESTATE. 3. IN APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE I TA NOS. 1216/PN/2010 & 1057/PN/2011 ORDER DATED 26-06-2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 ALLOWED THE CLAI M OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 5 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT REJECTING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE IT ACT 1961 WHEN THE HOUSING PROJECT UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS COMPLETED LATER THAN THE STATUTORY PERIOD ADMISSIBL E FOR COMPLETION OF PROJECT AS PRESCRIBED IN SUB-CLAUSE(II) OF CLAUSE ( A) TO SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE DATE O F APPROVAL BY LOCAL AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF HOUSING PROJECT 'KUNDAN EST ATES' AS 31.07.2004 EVEN THOUGH THE PROJECT WAS FIRST APPROVED BY THE L OCAL AUTHORITY ON 23.06.2003? 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE WHETHER ON THE FACT S AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE PROJECT U NDER CONSIDERATION CAN BE CONSIDERED AS COMPLETE BEFORE DUE DATE MEREL Y ON THE STRENGTH OF APPLICATION MADE TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE 3 1.03.2009 FOR ISSUE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE AND WHEN A COMPLETION CER TIFICATE WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE 31.03.2009 AS PER THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION (II) TO CLAUSE (A) OF SUB- SECTION (10) OF SECTION 80!B OF THE I.T. ACT 1961? 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AMEND OR ALTER A NY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET S UBMITTED THAT VIDE LETTER DATED 12-01-2006 THE PCMC HAD STOPPED T HE WORK OF THE PROJECT TILL FURTHER ORDERS. A COPY OF THE SAME IS PLACE AT PAGE 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK NO.-III. REFERRING TO PAGES 8 TO 11 OF PAPER BOOK-III THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT PCMC VIDE LETTER DATED 30-06-2008 HAS CANCELLED THE SUSP ENSION ORDER AND ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE TO PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION A S PER PERMISSION GRANTED EARLIER. REFERRING TO PAGE 2 OF PAPER BOOK -III THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E THROUGH HIS ARCHITECT HAD APPLIED TO THE PCMC FOR ISSUE OF COMP LETION 6 CERTIFICATE ON 20-03-2009. REFERRING TO THE CERTIF ICATE ISSUED BY PCMC DATED 31-03-2011 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PCMC HA D ISSUED THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPE CT OF THE SAID PROJECT W.E.F. 20-03-2009. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN TH E PRECEDING TWO YEARS THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS BEING THE THIRD YEAR OF THE CLAIM THEREFORE FACTS BEING SIMILAR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 6. IN HIS ALTERNATE CONTENTION HE SUBMITTED THAT TH E PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAMSUKH PROPERTIES V S. DCIT VIDE ITA NO. 84/PN/2011 HELD THAT WHEN FAULT OF INCOMPLE TION OF CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO ASSESSEE AND I N THE CASE WHEN SUCH A CONTINGENCY EMERGES WHICH MAKES THE COMPLIAN CE WITH PROVISION IMPOSSIBLE THEN BENEFIT BESTOWED ON AN A SSESSEE CANNOT BE COMPLETELY DENIED. SUCH LIBERAL INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE USED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE WHEN HE IS INCAPACITATED IN COMP LETING PROJECT IN TIME FOR THE REASONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL. HE ACCOR DINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE BEING A COVERED MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) HAS TO BE ALLOWED AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAS TO BE DISMISSED. 7. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 7 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND THE PAP ER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED TH E VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED ABOVE. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE IN HIS ORIGINAL RETURN FILED U/S. 139 HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.85 06 75 0/- U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT KUNDAN ESTATE . WE FIND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CONDUCTED U/S. 133A OF THE I.T. ACT ON 19-09-2008 THE STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS SHR I SUNISH KUMAR K. CHADDHA WAS RECORDED WHEREIN HE STATED IN HIS RE PLY TO Q. NO. 10 THAT HIS PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETED ON 31-03-2008 AND ACCORDING TO HIS OPINION FOUR YEARS SHOULD BE COUNTED FROM TH E DATE OF SUBMISSION OF REVISED PLAN WHICH IN HIS OPINION WAS THE FIRST PLAN. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE REVISED RETURN WITHDRAWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. WE FI ND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE MADE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE PLAN SANCTIONED ON 31-07-2004 IS NOT THE F IRST PLAN. IT IS A REVISED PLAN OF THE FIRST ORIGINAL PLAN SANCTIONED ON 23-06-2003. THE PROJECT WAS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFO RE 31-03-2008. SINCE THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT RECEIVED A ND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLETED THE PROJECT ON OR BEFORE 31-03-20 08 THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBU NAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE IMMEDIATELY TWO PRECEDING YEARS ALL OWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNA L AT PAGES 10 AND 11 OF THE ORDER HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 8 THEREFORE IT IS THE ASSESSEE WHO ACQUIRED THE RIGH TS OF DEVELOPMENT AND AFTER HAVING ACQUIRED FURTHER LAND OF O.H 20 R OUT OF SURVEY NO. 61/4 AMALGAMATED THE TWO PLOTS AND SOUGHT SANCTION FOR HOUSING PROJECT WHICH IS REFLECTED BY PCMC SANCTION DATED 31.7.2004. FACTUALLY THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SAY TH AT THE SELLER M/S. GANESH CONSTRUCTIONS HAD COMMENCED THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT AS SANCTIONED B Y PCMC ON 23.6.2003. IN FACT IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE LAND OF 84 R WITH M/S. GANESH CONSTRUCTIONS WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE MONTH OF JULY 2004 AND TILL THE DATE OF SUCH PURCHASE THER E WAS NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY STATED TO HAVE BEEN COMMENCED BY THE ERSTWHILE PERSON. AS A MATTER OF FACT THE ASSESSEE FIRM ACQU IRED FURTHER LAND OF 20 R ON THE SAME DATE AND REVISED THE BUILDING LAY- OUT WHICH WERE ORIGINALLY PREPARED BY THE ERSTWHILE HOLDER OF RIGH TS AND THE PLAN SO REVISED (INCLUSIVE OF THE ADDITIONAL LAND OF 20R) G OT SANCTIONED BY THE PCMC ON 31.7.2004 ONLY. IT IS ONLY AFTER THAT DATE THE ASSESSEE THUS COMMENCED THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE H OUSING PROJECT IN QUESTION. QUITE CLEARLY THE PROJECT IN QUESTION IS QUITE DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM THE PROJECT REFLECTED BY THE PCMC SAN CTION DATED 23.6.2003 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FEATURES WHICH WE HAVE NOTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN OUR VIEW HAS BEEN UNDULY INF LUENCED BY THE REMARK 'REVISED SANCTION' CONTAINED IN PCMC APPROVA L DATED 31.7.2004. IN FACT THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80- IB(10)(A) OF THE ACT PRESSED INTO SERVICE BY THE REVENUE REFERS TO THE A PPROVAL GRANTED TO THE SAME HOUSING PROJECT MORE THAN ONCE AND THE SAI D EXPLANATION IS NOT RELEVANT IN A CASE WHERE THE APPROVAL IS GRANTE D TO DIFFERENT HOUSING PROJECTS. THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION IS IN L INE WITH THE FOLLOWING PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. VANDANA PROPERTIES 19 TAXMANN.CO M 316 (BOM): 'RELIANCE PLACED BY THE REVENUE ON THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IB(10)(A) WHICH WAS INTRODUCED WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL 2005 IS ALSO MISPLACED. WHAT THE SAID EXPLANATION CONTEMPLATES IS THAT WHERE THE APPROVAL IN RESPECT OF A HOUSING PROJECT IS GRANTED MORE THAN ONCE THEN THAT HOUSI NG PROJECT SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED ON THE DATE O N WHICH THE BUILDING PLAN OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS FIRST APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. FOR EXAMPLE IN RESPECT OF A H OUSING PROJECT THE ASSESSEE MAY SEEK AMENDMENT OF THE BUI LDING PLAN AT SEVERAL STAGES OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE SAME MAYBE 9 APPROVED. IN SUCH A CASE THE EXPLANATION PROVIDES THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 80IB(10) THE HOUSING PROJECT SH ALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED ON THE DATE ON WHICH T HE FIRST APPROVAL WAS GRANTED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. THUS THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IB(10)(A) REFERS TO THE AP PROVAL GRANTED TO THE SAME HOUSING PROJECT MORE THAN ONCE AND THE SAID EXPLANATION WOULD NOT APPLY WHERE THE APPROVAL IS GRANTED TO DIFFERENT HOUSING PROJECTS. IN THE PRES ENT CASE AS NOTED EARLIER CONSTRUCTION OF E' BUILDING CONSTITU TES AN INDEPENDENT HOUSING PROJECT AND THEREFORE THE DAT E ON WHICH THE EARLIER HOUSING PROJECT HAD COMMENCED CONSTRUCT ION COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO THE HOUSING PROJECT CONSISTING OF BUILDING MERELY BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS SET OUT WHILE GRANTIN G APPROVAL TO THE EARLIER HOUSING PROJECT HAVE ALSO BEEN MADE APPLICABLE TO THE HOUSING PROJECT IN QUESTION.' . 11. QUITE CLEARLY IN THE PRESENT CASE FACTUALLY IT IS FOUND THAT THE PROJECT IN QUESTION REFLECTED BY THE SANCTION OF PC MC DATED 31.7.2004 IS DIFFERENT THAN THE PROJECT; INTENDED UNDER PCMC APPROVAL DATED 23.6.2003 WHICH IN ANY CASE HAS RIOT FRUCTIFIED. T HEREFORE IN THIS MANNER THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80-18(10) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED SO AS TO RECKON THE PERIOD OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION AS CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (I) OR (II) CLAUSE (A) TO SECTI ON 80-18(10) OF THE ACT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER IN OUR VIEW THE APPELL ANT IS JUSTIFIED IN ASSERTING THAT IT COMMENCED DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRU CTION OF HOUSING PROJECT ON 31.7.2004 AND NOT ON 23.6.2003 AND ACCOR DINGLY THE LAST DATE FOR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION HAS TO BE CALCU LATED AS PER SUB- CLAUSE (II) OF CLAUSE (A) TO SECTION 80-1B(10) OF T HE ACT IN TERMS OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE CONS TRUCTION BY 31.3.2009. NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE PROJECT IN QUESTION IS QUITE DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM THE PROJECT REFLECTED BY THE PCMC SANCTION DATED 23-06-2003. THE ASSESSE E HAS COMMENCED THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE H OUSING 10 PROJECT IN QUESTION AFTER THE PLAN WAS SANCTIONED B Y PCMC ON 31-07-2004. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT ON OR BEFORE 31-03-2009 WHICH T HE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS DONE BY MAKING AN APPLICATION TO PCMC FOR ISSUE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE VIDE LETTER DATED 2 0-03-2009. WE FURTHER FIND THE PCMC VIDE CERTIFICATE DATED 31-03- 2011 HAS ISSUED THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WHICH IS W.E.F. 20-03-20 09. THEREFORE EVEN IF THE CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED ON 31-03-2011 TH E SAME IS W.E.F. 20-03-2009. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE P CMC VIDE LETTER DATED 12-03-2006 HAD STAYED THE CONSTRUCTION OF WOR K TILL FURTHER ORDER. IT IS ONLY ON 30-06-2008 THAT THE PCMC CANC ELLED THE EARLIER ORDER STOPPING THE CONSTRUCTION AND PERMITTED THE A SSESSEE TO PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION. THEREFORE AS PER THE L IMITATION ACT THE PERIOD BETWEEN 30-06-2008 AND 12-01-2006 HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FOR COMPLYING THE CONDITIONS FOR COMPLETION OF THE PROJ ECT. IN ANY CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED THE COMPLETION CERTIFICAT E ON 31-03-2011 WHICH IS W.E.F. 20-03-2009. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTAN CES WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ALLOWING THE C LAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1462 (A.Y. 2009-10) 9. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE GROUND S RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.1461/PN/2013. WE HAVE ALREADY DEC IDED THE 11 ISSUE AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAVE BE EN DISMISSED. FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE ABOVE APPEAL ARE ALSO DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29-04-2015 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R PUNE DATED: 29 TH APRIL 2015 RK COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-V PUNE 4. THE CIT-V PUNE 5. THE D.R A PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT PUNE BENCHES PUNE