SMT. SUDHA SIMHAL, Bhopal v. THE DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

ITA 881/IND/2016 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 88122714 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN ACTPS8702M
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 881/IND/2016
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant SMT. SUDHA SIMHAL, Bhopal
Respondent THE DCIT 1(1), Bhopal
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 28-10-2016
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 23-08-2016
Judgment Text
SMT. SUDHA SIMHAL ITA 881/IND/2016 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE .. ..!' #$ # !% BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.881/IND/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SMT. SUDHA SIMHAL BHOPAL PAN ACTPS 8702M :: APPELLANT VS DCIT 1(1) BHOPAL :: RESPONDENT REVENUE BY SHRI HITESH CHIMNANI ASSESSEE BY SHRI MOHD. JAVED ! ' #$ DATE OF HEARING 5.10.2016 %&'( #$ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 5.10.2016 * O R D E R PER SHRI D.T. GARASIA JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) UJJAIN CAMP AT BHOPAL) D ATED 30.6.2016. SMT. SUDHA SIMHAL ITA 881/IND/2016 2 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.32 68 024/- IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SI DES. SO FAR AS THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED WE FIND THAT IN A RECENT JUDGMENT THE HON' BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S GLOBAL REALITY; ITA NO. 40/2012 AND OTHERS HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 19. THE PROVISION SUCH AS CLAUSE (A) AS AMENDED SE NSU STRICTO CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A NEW CONDITION AN D THAT TOO INCAPABLE OF COMPLIANCE. INASMUCH AS CLAUSE (A) DE ALS WITH THE TIME FRAME WITHIN WHICH THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED TO GET THE BENEFIT OF THE PRESCRIBED DEDUCTION. NOTABLY THE AMENDED SECTION 80IB (10) (A) EXTENDS THE BENEFIT EVEN TO THE HOUSING PROJECTS AP PROVED BY SMT. SUDHA SIMHAL ITA 881/IND/2016 3 THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE 31.03.2007 INSTEAD OF 31.03.2005 - AS WAS PROVIDED IN THE UNAMENDED PROVI SION. THEREFORE NECESSITY WAS FELT TO MAKE DISTINCTION B ETWEEN THE TWO CLASSES OF HOUSING PROJECTS FOR SPECIFYING THE TIME FRAME FOR COMPLETION. THE ONE APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2004; AND THE OT HER CLASS OF HOUSING PROJECT APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON OR AFTER 1ST APRIL 2004 TILL 31.03.2007. IN EITHER CAS E THE TIME FRAME FOR COMPLETION OF PROJECT HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED AS FOUR YEARS. IN THAT THE PROJECT APPROVED BEFORE 1ST APR IL 2004 HAS BEEN GIVEN TIME TO COMPLETE BEFORE 31.03.2008; AND IN THE LATTER CATEGORY I.T.A.NOS.40/2012 36/2012 & 35/2012 WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINAN CIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY T HE LOCAL AUTHORITY. 20. THUS UNDERSTOOD SIMILAR TIME FRAME FOR COMPLET ION OF HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO BOTH CLASS OF HOU SING PROJECTS. MOREOVER THE EXPLANATION BELOW CLAUSE (A ) IN PARTICULAR (II) APPLIES TO BOTH CLASS OF HOUSING P ROJECTS SMT. SUDHA SIMHAL ITA 881/IND/2016 4 UNIFORMLY. IT POSTULATES THAT 'THE DATE OF COMPLETI ON OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT' SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE 'THE DATE ON WHICH COMPLETION CERTIFICATE' IN RESPECT OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT 'IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY'. IF EXPL ANATION (II) IS SUPERIMPOSED ON THE EXPRESSION 'COMPLETES SUCH CONSTRUCTION' IN CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 80IB(10) IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE HOUSING PROJECTS COMMENCED ON OR AFTE R 01.10.1998 MUST POSSESS COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSU ED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON OR BEFORE THE CUT OFF DATE AS MAY BE APPLICABLE - TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR TAX DEDUCTION. AS PER EXPLANATION (II) THEREFORE THE SYNONYM OF 'COMPLE TES SUCH CONSTRUCTION' WOULD BE THE DATE ON WHICH COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. NO MO RE AND NO LESS. THUS ENOUGH INDICATION AND ALSO SUFFICIENT T IME HAS I.T.A.NOS.40/2012 36/2012 & 35/2012 BEEN GIVEN TO BOTH THE CLASS OF HOUSING PROJECTS TO FULFILL THAT CONDI TION. THE PROVISION IS IN THE NATURE OF LIMITING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION TO THE SPECIFIED HOUSING PROJECTS AND NOT TO THOSE WHO FAIL TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENT OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTI ON IN TIME FRAME SPECIFIED FOR THE RESPECTIVE CATEGORY OF HOUS ING SMT. SUDHA SIMHAL ITA 881/IND/2016 5 PROJECTS. THIS HAS BEEN DONE IN LARGER PUBLIC INTER EST - TO ENSURE THAT THE BENEFIT IS GIVEN ONLY TO SUCH PROJE CTS WHO WOULD FURTHER THE GOAL OF PROVIDING LOW COST ECONOM IC HOUSES TO THE DESERVING PERSONS IN REASONABLE TIME. 21. CONCEDEDLY IT IS WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF PARLIAME NT TO EXTEND BENEFIT OR PRIVILEGE TO CERTAIN CLASS OF PER SONS AND ALSO TO WITHDRAW THE SAME FOR JUST REASONS. THAT CA NNOT BE QUESTIONED UNLESS SHOWN TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN FORM OR ITS SUBSTANCE. IT WAS THUS OPEN TO THE PARLIAMENT TO PROVIDE FOR A CUT OFF DATE FOR COMPLETION OF THE HOUSING PR OJECTS AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO AVAIL BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION. IN THE PAST SUCH STIPULATION WAS IN PLACE BUT LATER ON IT WA S DONE AWAY WITH. HOWEVER BY AMENDMENT WHICH CAME INTO EF FECT FROM 1ST APRIL 2005 THE CONDITION FOR COMPLETION OF PROJECT WITHIN SPECIFIED TIME HAS I.T.A.NOS.40/2012 36/201 2 & 35/2012 BEEN REINTRODUCED WHILE GIVING SUFFICIENT TIME (FOUR YEARS) TO THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY FOR BEING EN TITLED TO GET DEDUCTION. SMT. SUDHA SIMHAL ITA 881/IND/2016 6 22. A PRIORI IT IS NOT A CASE OF IMPOSING NEW COND ITION MUCH LESS WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AS HAS BEEN ARGUED BEFORE US; UNLIKE INTRODUCTION OF NEW CONDITION IN THE SHAPE O F CLAUSE (D) - WHICH OBVIOUSLY COULD BE APPLIED ONLY PROSPEC TIVELY AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE AFORESAID DECISION S. CLAUSE (A) STANDS ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEDESTA L. IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS A NEW CONDITION LINKED TO THE APPROVAL AND CONSTRUCTION OR HAVING RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AS SUCH. FOR IT GIVES AT LEAST FOUR YEARS' TIME FRAME TO BOTH CL ASS OF HOUSING PROJECTS; TO WIT HOUSING PROJECTS APPROVED PRIOR TO 1ST APRIL 2004 OR AFTER 1ST APRIL 2004. THE FOUR YEARS PERIOD OBVIOUSLY HAS PROSPECTIVE EFFECT ALBEIT LIMITING T HE PERIOD FOR COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT TO AVAIL OF THE BENEFIT. FOUR YEARS' TIME FRAME FOR COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT BY NO STA NDARDS CAN BE SAID TO BE UNREASONABLE HARSH ABSURD OR IN CAPABLE OF COMPLIANCE. IT IS ALSO NOT A CASE OF WITHDRAWAL OF VESTED RIGHT OF THE DEVELOPER AS SUCH. NO DEVELOPER CAN C LAIM VESTED RIGHT TO COMPLETE THE HOUSING PROJECT I.T.A.NOS.40/2012 36/2012 & 35/2012 IN INDEFINITE PERIOD. THE RIGHT ARISING FROM SECTION 80IB IS COUPLED WITH SMT. SUDHA SIMHAL ITA 881/IND/2016 7 THE OBLIGATION OR DUTY TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT IN S PECIFIED TIME FRAME. IF THE DEVELOPER DOES NOT COMPLETE THE HOUSI NG PROJECT WITHIN SPECIFIED TIME WILL NOT RECEIVE THAT BENEFI T. THERE IS NO COMPULSION ON HIM TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT IN FOU R YEARS. NOTABLY EVEN THE APPROVALS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT GRANTED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY SPECIFY THE DATE WITHIN WHICH THE CONSTRUCTION MUST BE COMPLETED AS PER THE TIME FRAME SPECIFIED IN THE PERMISSION. IF THE PROJ ECT IS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME THE DEVELOPER IS FREE TO GET THAT PERIOD RENEWED OR EXTENDED FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AS PER THE APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS. THE PR OVISION FOR CLAIMING TAX DEDUCTION FROM PROFITS CAN CERTAI NLY PRESCRIBE FOR REASONABLE CONDITIONS AND MORE SO TIM E FRAME FOR COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT IN LARGER PUBLIC INT EREST. 23. SUFFICE IT TO OBSERVE THAT NO COMPARISON CAN B E DRAWN BETWEEN THE NEW CONDITION PRESCRIBED IN TERMS OF CL AUSE (D) AND THAT OF CLAUSE (A). CONDITION IN CLAUSE (A) NE ITHER OPERATES RETROSPECTIVELY NOR CAN BE SAID TO BE ABSU RD UNJUST OR EXPECTING I.T.A.NOS.40/2012 36/2012 & 35/2012 T HE SMT. SUDHA SIMHAL ITA 881/IND/2016 8 ASSESSEE TO COMPLY WITH SOMETHING WHICH IS IMPOSSIB LE TO ACHIEVE. 24. THE NEXT QUESTION THAT NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED IS WHETHER THE STIPULATION IN SECTION 80IB(10)(A) CAN BE SAID TO BE DIRECTORY. CONSIDERING THE PRODIGIOUS BENEFIT OFFERED IN TERMS OF SECTION 80IB TO THE ASSESSEE (HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS DERIVED IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT T O ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR); AND THE PURPOSE UNDERLYING THE SA ME - WHICH IS INTER ALIA BURDEN ON THE PUBLIC EXCHEQUER DUE TO WAIVER OF COMMENSURATE REVENUE - THE STIPULATION FO R OBTAINING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THE LOCAL AUT HORITY BEFORE THE CUT OFF DATE MUST BE CONSTRUED AS MANDA TORY. THE FACT THAT COMPLIANCE OF THAT CONDITION IS DEPEN DENT ON THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PROPOSAL IS PROCESSED BY TH E LOCAL AUTHORITY THE PROVISION CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A D IRECTORY REQUIREMENT. IT IS A SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION MANDATIN G ISSUANCE OR GRANT OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE THE CUT OFF DATE OR SPECIFIED TIME AS A PRECONDITION TO GET THE BENEFIT OF TAX DEDUCTION. E LSE IT WILL SMT. SUDHA SIMHAL ITA 881/IND/2016 9 THEN BE OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO RELY ON OTHER CIRCU MSTANCES OR I.T.A. NOS. 40/2012 36/2012 & 35/ 2012 EVIDENCE TO PLEAD THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT IS COMPLETE - REQUIR ING ENQUIRY INTO THOSE MATTERS BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES - SANS A COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY IN THAT B EHALF. A PRIORI THE ARGUMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE IS S UFFICIENT WOULD LEAD TO UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE DATE OF COMPLET ION OF THE PROJECT WHICH IS THE HALLMARK FOR AVAILING OF THE B ENEFIT OF TAX DEDUCTION. ONLY WITH THIS INTENT THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS WISDOM HAS PREDICATED THAT 'THE COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTIO N' OF THE HOUSING PROJECT IS TAKEN TO BE 'THE DATE ON WHICH' THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE 'IS ISSUED' BY THE LOCAL AUT HORITY. TO INTERPRET IT TO INCLUDE AN EX POST FACTO CERTIFICAT E OR SUCH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AFTER THE CUT OFF DATE WOULD NOT ONLY RESULT IN REWRITING OF THE EXP RESS PROVISION AND RUN CONTRARY TO THE UNAMBIGUOUS POSIT ION PRONOUNCED IN THE SECTION BUT ALSO DOING VIOLENCE TO THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT. FOR EXPLANATION (II) WILL THEN HAVE TO BE READ AS 'DATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE THE DATE AS CERTIFIED BY THE LOCAL SMT. SUDHA SIMHAL ITA 881/IND/2016 10 AUTHORITY IN THAT BEHALF' IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF SUCH CERTIFICATE BY THE I.T.A.NOS.40/2012 36/20 12 & 35/2012 LOCAL AUTHORITY. INDEED IN A GIVEN CASE IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE COMPLETIO N CERTIFICATE 'WAS IN FACT ISSUED' BY THE LOCAL AUTHO RITY BEFORE THE CUT OFF DATE BUT COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BY HIM WITHIN TIME DUE TO REASONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL THE ARGUMEN T OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISION CAN BE TEST ED. ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION WOULD RESULT NOT ONLY IN UNCER TAINTY (IN FINALIZATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DUE TO NON-I SSUANCE OR DELAYED ISSUANCE OF SUCH CERTIFICATE BY THE LOCA L AUTHORITY AND PRONE TO MANIPULATIONS AT THE END OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY); BUT ALSO HAVE TO YIELD TO THE SUBJECTIV E SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND OF INVE STING WIDE DISCRETION IN THAT AUTHORITY WHICH EVENTUALLY MA Y ONLY END UP IN GETTING EMBROILED IN LITIGATION. IF THE ASSES SEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITION OF OBTAINING CO MPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE THE CUT OFF DATE HE MUST TAKE THE CONSEQUENCE THEREFOR AND OF DENIAL OF THE BENEFIT OF TAX DEDUCTION OFFERED TO HIM ON THAT COU NT. SMT. SUDHA SIMHAL ITA 881/IND/2016 11 25. WE CANNOT BE OBLIVIOUS OF THE FACT THAT THE MUN ICIPAL LAWS OF DIFFERENT STATES ARE NOT UNIFORM IN RESPECT OF PROCEDURE FOR I.T.A.NOS.40/2012 36/2012 & 35/2012 ISSUANCE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. TO WIT IN SOME STATES THE DISPENSATION PROVIDED IS TO ISSUE PARTI AL OR FULL OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE; AND THEREAFTER ISSUE COMPLE TION CERTIFICATE AFTER REMOVAL OF ALL THE DEFICIENCIES P OINTED OUT BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. IN SOME STATES THE MUNICIPAL LAW MAY PROVIDE FOR ISSUING PARTIAL OR FULL COMPLETION CERT IFICATE. THE REQUIREMENT OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AS ENVISAGED IN SECTION 80IB(10)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH IS A CENTRAL ENACTMENT DEALING WITH THE SPECIAL SUBJECT OF TAXATION HOWEVER IS OF ONLY O NE CERTIFICATE - WHICH IS FULL COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE THE CUT OFF DATE. THAT IS TO LEND CREDENCE TO THE FACTUM OF COMPLETION OF THE ENTIRE HOUSING PROJECT IN ALL RESPECTS AS PER THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. IT CAN BE SAFELY ASSUMED THAT THE LEGISLATURE WAS CONSCIOUS OF THIS POSITION FOR WHICH EXPRESS PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE AS TO THE MEANING OF THE DATE OF COMP LETION SMT. SUDHA SIMHAL ITA 881/IND/2016 12 OF THE HOUSING PROJECT LINKED TO THE 'DATE ON WHICH ' COMPLETION CERTIFICATE 'IS ISSUED' BY THE 'LOCAL AU THORITY' AS PREDICATED IN EXPLANATION (II) THEREUNDER. 26. WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT ISSUANCE OF COMPLETIO N CERTIFICATE AFTER THE CUT OFF DATE BY THE LOCAL AU THORITY BUT MENTIONING THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF PROJECT BEFORE THE CUT OFF DATE DOES NOT FULFILL THE CONDITION SPECIFIED IN CL AUSE (A) OF SECTION 80IB (10) READ WITH EXPLANATION (II) THEREU NDER. WE REJECT THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EFFECT OF AMENDED CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION 10 OF SECTION 80I B WHICH HAS COME INTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL 2005 HAS RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OR THAT IT IS UNJUST IN ANY MA NNER OR INCAPABLE OF COMPLIANCE AT ALL. SIMILARLY THE REQU IREMENT OF SECURING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE THE CUT OFF DATE IS NOT DIRECTORY IN VIEW O F THE EXPRESS PROVISION IN SECTION 80IB(10)(A) AND THE EXPLANATIO N (II) THEREUNDER. THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE GRANTED BY T HE LOCAL AUTHORITY MUST BEAR THE DATE OF HAVING BEEN ISSUED BEFORE THE CUT OFF DATE. SMT. SUDHA SIMHAL ITA 881/IND/2016 13 27. THAT TAKES US TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THE STIPULATION IN SECTION 80IB(10)(A) OF COMPLETIO N CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE TH E CUT OFF DATE CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOL LOWING THE WORK IN PROGRESS ACCOUNTING METHOD. IN OUR OPIN ION THE PROVISION IN THE FORM OF SECTION 80IB (10)(A) APPL IES UNIFORMLY TO ALL THE ASSESSEES - BE IT FOLLOWING WO RK IN PROGRESS ACCOUNTING METHOD OR OTHERWISE. THE BENEFI T OF DEDUCTION UNDER THIS PROVISION CAN BE AVAILED BY TH E ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE WORK IN PROGRESS ACCOUNTING METHOD PROVIDED HE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE STIPULATI ON OF HAVING PRODUCED COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TH E LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE THE CUT OFF DATE AS MAY BE APPLIC ABLE IN HIS CASE. IN OTHER WORDS IF THE HOUSING PROJECT WA S APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE 1 ST APRIL 2004 HE MUST SUBMIT COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AU THORITY HAVING BEEN ISSUED BEFORE THE 31 ST MARCH 2008. WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF HOUSING PROJECT APPROVED ON OR AFTER 1 ST APRIL 2004 THE ASSESSEE CAN AVAIL OF THE BENEFIT PROVIDE D COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORIT Y IS SMT. SUDHA SIMHAL ITA 881/IND/2016 14 WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEA R IN WHICH THE CONCERNED HOUSING PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. IF THIS CONDITION IS NOT FULFILLED THE ASSESSEE WHO MAINTAINS WORK IN PROGRESS ACCOUNTING METHOD AND HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10)(A) MUST SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCE OF DISALLOW ANCE OR WITHDRAWAL OF THE BENEFIT CLAIMED BY HIM ON THAT CO UNT. 28. ACCORDINGLY THESE APPEALS SUCCEED. THE IMPUGNE D JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL IS SET ASIDE; AND IN THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO DISALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS UPHELD . NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 4. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDER ED THE SWEEP OF AMENDED CLAUSE (A) OF THE PROVISION UNDER SUB-SECTION (10) OF SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT AND HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (A) AS AMENDED SEN SUSTRICTO CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS NEW CONDITION AND THAT TOO INCAPABLE OF COMPLIANCE. THE CLAUSE DEALS WITH THE TIME FRAME WITHIN SMT. SUDHA SIMHAL ITA 881/IND/2016 15 WHICH THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS EXPECTED TO BE COMPLET ED TO GET THE BENEFIT OF PRESCRIBED DEDUCTION. THE HON'BL E HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT ISSUANCE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE AFTER THE CUT OFF DATE BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BUT MENTIONING IN THE DATE OF THE COMPLETION OF PROJECT BEFORE CUT OFF DATE DOES NOT FULFIL THE CONDITION SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE (A) OF S ECTION 80IB(10) READ WITH EXPLANATION 2 THEREUNDER. IN VIEW O F THIS FINDING OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMIS S THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 5 TH OCTOBER 2016 SD/- SD/- ( ..!') (..) #$ (O.P.MEENA) (D.T.GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER (') / DATED : 28 OCTOBER 2016. SMT. SUDHA SIMHAL ITA 881/IND/2016 16 DN/