The ITO, Ward-4,, Bharuch v. Shree Vindheshwari Enterprise, Ankleshwar

ITA 292/AHD/2013 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 29220514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN ABDFS1160R
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 292/AHD/2013
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, Ward-4,, Bharuch
Respondent Shree Vindheshwari Enterprise, Ankleshwar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 25-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 21-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 21-10-2013
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 01-02-2013
Judgment Text
ITA NO 292/A HD/2013 . A.Y. 2009- 10 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI J.M. & SHRI ANIL CHATURVE DI A.M.) I.T. A. NO. 292 /AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) THE I.T.O. WARD-4 BHARUCH (APPELLANT) VS. M/S SHREE VINDHESHWARI ENTERPRISES SHOP. NO. 4/5 VAIBHAV PARK SOC VALIA ROAD BHADKODARA AHKLESHWAR GUJARAT-393002 ( RESPONDENT) PAN: ABDFS1160R APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.L. KUREEL SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.P. SHAH ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 21-10-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 -10-2013 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI A.M. 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)- VI BARODA DATED 30.11.2012 FOR A.Y. 2009-10. 2. THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON REC ORD ARE AS UNDER. 3. ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CO NSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ON 10.0 9.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 11 24 370/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF ITA NO 292/A HD/2013 . A.Y. 2009- 10 2 RS. 38 76 416/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE A CT VIDE ORDER DATED 21.12.2011 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT R S. 50 28 400/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O. ASSESSEE CARRIED TH E MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.11.2012 ALLOWED THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF CIT(A) THE REV ENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GR OUND:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWING DEDUCTIO N OF RS. 38 76 416/- U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE I.T. ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT LEGAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEE N THE ASSESSEE AND THE END USER OF UNITS WAS THAT O F WORK CONTRACT 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS A.O. NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED LAND FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AND OBTAINED PERMISSION TO DEVELOP A HOUSING PROJECT ON THIS LAND IN THE NAME OF SHRI VINDHESHWARI ENTERPRISES. HE FURTHER NOTICED THAT AFTER OBTAINING PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPING THE HOUSING PROJECT FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY INSTEAD OF DEVELOPING THE PROJECT IT SOLD THE LAND BY CUTT ING IT TO PIECES OF PLOT OF VARIOUS SIZES TO DIFFERENT PARTIES. HE ALSO NOTICE D THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CONSTRUCTION INCOME OF RS. 1 69 64 600/- FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF DEVELOPING UNITS ON THE DIFFERENT PLOTS SOLD BY IT ON CONTRACT BASIS. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO A SEPARATE CONSTRUCTION A GREEMENT WITH THE PLOT OWNERS. THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE ASKED TO JUSTIF Y ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WA S NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE A.O. A.O THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE BY CUTTING THE LAND INTO INDEPENDENT PLOTS OF DIFFERENT SIZE AND S ELLING THIS PLOT INDEPENDENTLY HAD VIOLATED THE CONDITION OF HAVING AN AREA OF MOR E THAN 1 ACRE OF LAND AND AS SUCH HAS CEASED TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB(10) AS THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROJECT. FROM THE CONSTRUCTION AG REEMENT HE NOTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS MERELY A CONTRACTOR FOR THE CONSTRUCTI ON OF HOUSE. HE THEREFORE RELYING ON THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF SKY BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS VS. ITO DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER ITA NO 292/A HD/2013 . A.Y. 2009- 10 3 80IB(10). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A) CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSES SEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE FINDING OF THE AO AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF A PLOT HAVING AREA OF 52702 SQR METRES WHICH \ IS MORE THAN THE MINIMUM AREA OF 01 ACRE REQUIRED TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THE 80IB(10). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN NECESSARY APPROVAL FROM THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND COMMENCED THE SCHEME WITH IN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD AND CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL UNITS HAVING BUILT-UP AREA OF LESS THAN 1500 SQR FEET. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE AO IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DIVIDED THE ABOVE PLOT INTO SEVERAL SMALLER PLOTS AND SOLD THEM INDIVIDUALLY TO VARIOUS BUYERS. AFTER THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ENTERED INTO CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNERS OF PLOT AND CONSTRUCTED UNITS AS PER THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE OWNERS. THEREFORE APPELLANT HAS CONST RUCTED RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE CAPACITY OF AN AGENT OR WORKS CONTRACTOR RATHER THAN A DEVELOPE R. SECONDLY THE BIGGER PLOT HAS BEEN DIVIDED INTO VARIOUS SMALLER PLOTS HAVING AREA OF L ESS THAN 01 ACRE AND THEREFORE VIOLATED THE CONDITION OF MINIMUM AREA REQUIRED TO CLAIM DEDUCTI ON U/S 801B (10). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS THE APP ELLANT HAS SUBMITTED DETAILS OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS GIVING PARTICULARS OF BOOKINGS R EGISTRATION CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT AND POSSESSION DATES ALONGWITH THE LAND AND CONSTRUCTIO N PRICES. JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE EVENTS DETAILS OF RANDOMLY SELEC TED 10 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE HERE IN BELOW:- F.Y. 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 RESI UNIT NO. NAME BOOKING DATE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT DATE REGISTRATIN DATE POSSESION DATE LAND PRICE CONSTRUCTION DATE TOTAL COST A-6 VIRENDRA PRARBHIT PRASAD 17.04.06 17.04.06 13.10.06 15.11.06 27300 572700 6 00000 C- 10 GIRISH KAMALA TIWARI 16.12.06 16.12.06 18.12.06 28.02.07 12000 266000 27 8000 A- 10 GHANSHYAM DHARMENDAR JOSHI 08.04.06 08.04.06 19.03.07 12.05.07 41000 599000 64 0000 B- 11 SUNIL ABHIMANYU DHAGAR 01.12.06 01.12.06 19.05.07 07.06.07 32440 427560 46 0000 C- 60 DATTATRAY HARI PATIL 02.01.06 02.01.06 13.08.07 17.09.07 23700 266300 29 0000 C- 56 PRALHADSINGH RAMSUCHIT SINGH 20.03.07 20.03.07 20.09.07 01.10.07 23700 341300 36 5000 B- 35 MOTILAL CHHAGUM KHIRNAR 21.02.07 21.02.07 27.12.07 02.04.08 41100 41100 B- 38 SANJAY JETHABHAI RAVAL 23.01.08 23.01.08 13.03.08 02.04.08 41100 741000 A- 26 VIJAYPAL SINGH BHUPAL SINGH 03.05.08 03.05.08 20.05.08 02.06.08 87400 912600 10 00000 B- 46 HARISHKUMAR K RATHORE 20.06.08 20.06.08 28.08.06 01.09.08 41100 808900 85 0000 IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE TABLE THAT THE CHRONO LOGY FOLLOWED IS FIRST THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE BOOKED AND INVARIABLY ON THE SAME DAY APPELLANT ENTERS INTO CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT THE REGISTRATION DEED IS REGISTERED AND LASTLY POSSESSI ON OF THE UNITS IS HANDED OVER. THIS PATTERN IS FOLLOWED IN RESPECT OF MAJORITY OF CASES. SO IT IS CLEAR THAT CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT ALWAYS PROCEEDS DATE OF REGISTRATION. MEANING THEREBY THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SOLD RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALONG WITH THE LAND.HE HAS NOT SOLD THE LAND BEFORE ENTERING INTO THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT ITA NO 292/A HD/2013 . A.Y. 2009- 10 4 AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE AO. APPARENTLY APPELLANT H AS FOLLOWED THIS ROUTE TO SAVE ON STAMP DUTY. THIS PRACTICE IS BEING FOLLOWED INVARIABLY BY THE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS WHO ARE CONSTRUCTING AND SELLING BUNGALOWS OR APA RTMENTS. BY DOING SO THEY SAVE ON THE STAMP DUTY. IF CONSTRUCTED BUNGALOW IS SOLD THEN THE STA MP DUTY WOULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED ON THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ALONG WITH THE LAND PRICES. THIS MO DUS OPERENDI IS WELL KNOWN TO THE STATE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES. EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT AWAR E THEN THE AO SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THESE FACTS TO THE NOTICE OF THE REGISTRATION AUTHORI TY. AS FAR AS INCOME-TAX IS CONCERNED APPELLANT HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM SALE OF LAND AS WEL L AS RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION. THE AO IS READING TOO MUCH INTO THE CONSTRUCTION AG REEMENT. IN FACT THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS BUYERS AT THE TIME OF BOOKING ITSELF HAVE DECIDED EVERYTHING I.E SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE UNIT WHICH CONSISTS OF LAND COST AND CONSTRUCTION COST. THUS WHAT IS BOOKED IS NOT A PLOT OF LAND OR CONSTRUCTION COST BUT A WHOLLY CONSTRUCTED UNIT. TH E BUILDER HAS PREPARED TWO AGREEMENTS VIZ. SALE DEED PERTAINING TO LAND AND C ONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSTRUCTION THEREBY DIVIDED THE TOTAL CONSIDERATIO N IN TWO PARTS I.E. LAND PRICE AND CONSTRUCTION PRICE. ONLY SALE DEED HAS BEEN REGIST ERED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A NY MERIT IN THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE AO. THIS IS NOT A CASE IN WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS NOT I NVOLVED IN PURCHASE OF LAND AND HAS NOT MADE INVESTMENT AND INCURRED NECESSARY DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE. IN SECTION 80IB(10) THE EXPLANATION WAS INSERTED B Y THE FINANCE (NO. 2 ACT) OF THE ACT 2009 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT ACCORDING TO WHICH THE D EDUCTION WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSEE EXECUTING SUCH PROJECT AS A WORKS CONTRACT . HOWEVER THIS EXPLANATION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES WHO ARE MAKING SUBSTANT IAL INVESTMENT AND MANAGING THE PROJECT AT THEIR OWN RISK. HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RAD HE DEVELOPERS 341 ITR 403 HAS HELD THAT IN A CASE WHERE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED LAND AND DEVE LOPED PROJECT ON LAND BELONGING TO THIRD PARTIES DEDUCTION IS AVAILABLE TO THE DEVELOPER WH O WAS INVOLVED IN ALL ACTIVITIES RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. SINCE THIS CASE WAS DECIDED AFTER THE ASSESSMENT OR DER WAS PASSED HENCE THE BENEFIT OF THE SAME WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE AO. THE SAID DECISION HAS DULY CONSIDERED VARIOUS REASONS STATED BY THE AO FOR DISALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10). THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF K RAHEJA DEVELOPMENT CO RPORATION WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE AO HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME TAX SINCE THE SAME WAS PERTAINING TO SALES TAX LAW. THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE APPELLANT IS ACTED ON BEHA LF OF LAND OWNER AND HAS GOT FIXED CONSIDERATION FOR DEVELOPING THE HOUSING PROJECT. T HE LAND WAS BELONGING TO APPELLANT AND HE HAS UNDERTAKEN THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING PROJECT AT HIS OWN RISK AND COST. THE ENTIRE RISK OF INVESTMENT AND EXPENDITURE WAS T HAT OF THE APPELLANT. RESULTANTLY PROFIT AND LOSS WOULD ALSO ACCRUE TO THE APPELLANT ALONE. IN T HIS VIEW OF THE MATTER DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE DISALLOWED. REGARDING THE SIZE OF THE PLOT MINIMUM AREA OF 01 ACRE IS PRESCRIBED. APPARENTLY THIS REFERS TO THE AREA OF THE PROJECT AND NOT THE AREA OF INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL UNIT. THE TOTAL AREA ON WHICH THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IS COMPLETED IS AROUND 52 702 SQR. MTR WHICH IS MORE THAN ONE ACRE. HENCE THIS CONDITION IS ALSO COMPILED WITH BY THE APPELLA NT. LOOKING TO THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND THE RATIO OF THE CITE JUDGMENT DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) AMOUNTING TO RS.38.76 410/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US THE LD. D.R. POINTED TO VARIO US FINDINGS OF A.O. MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB(10) FOR THE REASON THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD SOLD THE PLOTS AND THEREAFTER ACTED AS A CONTRACTOR TO CONSTRUCT T HE HOUSE. SINCE THE ITA NO 292/A HD/2013 . A.Y. 2009- 10 5 ASSESSEE IS NOT A DEVELOPER OF THE HOUSING PROJECT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB(10). THE LD. A.R. ON THE OTHER HAND POINTED TO THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEE N DENIED THE DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB(10) BY THE A.O. FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND HAS ACTED ONLY AS A CONTRACTOR. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. RADHE DEVELOPERS 341 ITR 403 WAS DELIVERED BY HON. GUJARAT HIGH COURT ON 30 TH DECEMBER 2011 AND THEREFORE THE A.O. WAS NOT HAVING THE BENEFIT O F THE AFORESAID DECISION. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE C ASE OF SHIKAR DEVELOPERS ITA NO. 854/AHD/2010 HAS NOTED THE VARIOUS REQUIREM ENTS AS STIPULATED IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (2010) 329 ITR 01 (GUJ ) NEEDS TO BE FULFILLED BY A DEVELOPER TO STAKE A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE GUIDELINES AS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS AS UNDER:- 6. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ISSUE OF ADMISSIBILITY OF DEDUCTION PRESCRIBED U/S.80-IB(10) IS NOW TO BE DECIDED AS PER THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD. IN TAX APPEAL NO. 171 OF 1999 VIDE ORDER DATED 01/04/2009 [REPORTED AT (2010 ) 329 ITR 01 (GUJ.)]- THE HON'BLE COURT HAS GIVEN FINDING IN THAT CASE AFTER EXAMINATION OF CER TAIN FACTS TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S .80- IB(10). ONLY AFTER GIVING A FINDING ON FACTS THE H ON'BLE COURT HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S.80- IB(10). THOSE REQUIREMENTS HAVE TO BE FULFILLED BY A DEVELOPER TO STAKE A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. THE REQUISITE INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. W E HAVE NOTICED THAT THE SAID REQUISITE INFORMATION WAS NOT EVEN EXAMINED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE- HIGH COURT DECISION. THE GUIDELINES GIVEN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT CAN BE S UMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:- (A) THE RELEVANT TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AR E TO BE EXAMINED SO AS TO ASCERTAIN THE TERMS ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED RIGHT OF CONSTRUCTIO N OF A HOUSING PROJECT. (B) ON THE BASIS OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IT HA S TO BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER IT WAS A 'WORK CONTRACT ' OR A 'DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT'. (C) ON THE BASIS OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IT HAS TO BE EXAMINED THAT WHICH OF THE PARTY HAD TAK EN FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR EXECUTION OF THE SAID DEVEL OPMENT PROJECT. (D) WHETHER UNDER THE AGREEMENT THE ASSESSEE HAD B EEN GIVEN FULL AUTHORITY TO DEVELOP THE LAND AND TO CONSTRUCT RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE AO HAS TO EXAMINE THE FACT IN RESPECT OF ENGAGEMENT OF PROFESSIONALS SUCH AS ARCHITECT FOR DESIGNING AND ARCHITECTURAL WORK. (E) THE AO HAS TO EXAMINE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EN ROLMENT OF MEMBERS AND COLLECTION OF CHARGES REQUIRED TO BE MADE FROM THE BUYERS OF THE RESIDENT IAL UNITS. (F) THE AO HAS TO EXAMINE ABOUT THE 'PROFIT' OR 'L OSS' ARISING FROM THE SAID PROJECT. (G) THOUGH THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND HAS BEEN HELD AS N OT THE ONLY CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM U/S 80IB(10) BUT THE DOMAIN OVER THE LAND AND THE CONTR OL OVER THE PROJECT HAS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE A.O. (H) WHETHER ON TRANSFER OF DOMAIN THE LAND OWNERS HAVE RECEIVED ANY CONSIDERATION AND WHETHER IT WAS A FIXED AMOUNT OR DEPEND UPON THE PROFITS OF TH E PROJECT. LIKEWISE THE AO HAS TO ASCERTAIN THAT ITA NO 292/A HD/2013 . A.Y. 2009- 10 6 WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN A FIXED PERCENTAGE A S REMUNERATION FOR THE SAID PROJECT IN LIEU OF GRANTING PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT THE RESIDENTIAL UN ITS OR TO EARN PROFITS AS A PROJECT DEVELOPER. (I) THE AO HAS TO ASCERTAIN THE POSITION OF THE PO SSESSION OVER THE LAND DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. (J) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION THE AO HAS TO E XAMINE THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS. (K) THE A.O. HAS TO EXAMINE THE PROCEDURE FOR RAISI NG OF FUNDS EITHER BY PRIVATE PLACEMENT OR BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. (L) THE RISK ELEMENT CONNECTED WITH THE SAID HOUSIN G PROJECT HAS ALSO TO BE EXAMINED. (M) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO EXAMINE THE SIZE O F THE PLOT ON WHICH PROJECT IS CONSTRUCTED. (N) THE A.O. HAS TO EXAMINE BUILT-UP AREA OF SANCT IONED UNIT WHETHER WILL IN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. 7. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE GUIDELINES ONCE THE MA TTER IS GOING BACK FOR RECONCILIATION THEN THE AGREEMENTS CONNECTED TO TH E LAND AND THE DETAILS OF THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY PERMITT ING TO DEVELOP THE HOUSING PROJECT CAN ALSO BE EXAMINED IF DEEM FIT. SINCE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS GIVEN THE VERDICT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER D UE ASCERTAINMENT OF THESE BASIC FACTS THEREFORE IT IS APPROPRIATE FIRST TO P LACE ON RECORD ALL THESE INFORMATION AND THEN IF FACTS ARE IDENTICAL CONSEQU ENTLY THEREUPON THE CITED DECISION HAS TO BE FOLLOWED TO DISPOSE OF THE ISSUE . WITH THESE DIRECTIONS WE HEREBY ALLOW THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE THAT TOO FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE COMPLIANCE OF ALL THE OTHER CONDITIONS AS LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHIKHAR DEVELOPERS (SUPRA). FOR SUCH C OMPLIANCE THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A). THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 25 -10 - 2013. SD/- SD/- (D.K. TYAGI) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED.