M/S. RAJDHANI LAND & HOUSING CORPORATION,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -1, BHOPAL

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, इंदौर �यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

BEFORE HON’BLE RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING

ITA No.975/Ind/2019 Assessment Year:2007-08 M/s Rajdhani Land & Pr. CIT-1, Housing Corporation, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. AAHFR4618J Appellant by Shri Girish Agrawal & Ms. Nisha Lahoti, ARs Revenue by Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 16.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961( hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’ for short) by Ld. Pr. CIT-1 Bhopal vide order dated 20.09.2019.

Rajdhani Land & Housing

assessee is proprietorship firm engaged in the business of civil

constructions developing building and housing project. Return of

income for A.Y. 2007-08 was filed on 15.11.2007 declaring income of

Rs. 1,58,470/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act at

Rs. 1,11,55,537/-. Case selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 263

duly served upon the assessee. Ld. AO examined the claim of

deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act but was not convinced with the

submissions and documents filed by the assessee. Accordingly claim

of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act was rejected and income

assessed at Rs.1,13,14,007/- u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated

27.11.2009.

succeeded as Ld. CIT(A) after considering the documents allowed the

deduction vide order dated 11.05.2010. Thereafter the revenue filed

an appeal before this tribunal and vide order dated 25.04.2012 in

ITANo.558/Ind/2010, this tribunal after considering the facts placed

and evidences filed restored the issue to Ld. AO for deciding afresh

and also examining the deduction of u/s 80IB(10) of the Act.

Rajdhani Land & Housing

assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act and after

considering the facts and the clarification letter dated 29.03.2014

issued by Bhopal Municipal Corporation allowed the claim of

deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act at Rs.1,11,55,537/-.

Subsequently Ld. Pr. CIT after examining the assessment records

invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act and vide order dated

14.03.2016 held the assessment order dated 31.03.2014 as

erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directed the

Ld. AO to decide it afresh.

assessee preferred an appeal before this tribunal praying for

quashing the order u/s 263 of the Act. This tribunal vide its order

26.10.2018 ITANo.475/Ind/2016 observing that the assessee was

not afforded sufficient opportunity by Ld. Pr. CIT decided to set

aside the order u/s 263 of the Act dated 14.03.2016 and directed

the Ld. Pr. CIT to decide case afresh after providing sufficient

opportunity to the assessee.

Rajdhani Land & Housing

Pr. CIT again carried out the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. Details

were called from the assessee to which it was submitted that the

details already filed on 11.03.2016 and submissions dated

12.12.2016 may be considered. However, Ld. Pr. CIT was of the view

that Ld. AO has allowed the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act

merely by obtaining the completion certificate but without

conducting necessary enquiry regarding completion of housing

project. Accordingly Ld. Pr. CIT after placing reliance on certain

judicial precedents held that the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated

31.03.2014 passed by the Ld. AO for A.Y. 2007-08 is set aside and

directed to Ld. AO to make it de novo, after proper examination

enquiry and verification of all aspects and giving reasonable

opportunity to the assessee of being heard.

following grounds:

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT is unsustainable both on law and facts and therefore the same be kindly quashed. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the finding of the Ld. Pr. CIT that “since no proper enquiries regarding completion of housing project has been made by the AO the order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue” are wholly wrong and unjustified and, therefore, such findings be quashed and it be held that the AO has passed 4

Rajdhani Land & Housing

the assessment order after full application of mind and after having examined all material on record and therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order of the Ld. P. CIT u/s 263, therefore, be quashed. 7. Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the

following written submissions and submitted that the Ld. AO has

conducted sufficient enquiry and made proper application of mind

and in light of the documentary evidences allowed the claim u/s

80IB(10) of the Act:-

1.Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 27.11.2009 wherein the claim of assessee u/s 80IB(10) of Rs. 1,11,55,537 was disallowed. The matter travelled before the Hon'ble Bench vide ITA No. 558/lnd/2010 and the order was pronounced on 25.04.2012. Hon'ble Bench set aside the matter to the file of Ld. AO giving the following two directions - [PB 04-08, 26-32] a. to make enquiry with regards to the infrastructure facilities developed by the assessee in terms of the approval for the housing project granted by the Municipal Authority, Bhopal. b.to decide the issue of eligibility of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IB(10) as per the law after considering the completion certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation. 2.In the set-aside proceedings, Ld. AO after verifying the letter dated 29.03.2014 issued by the Bhopal Municipal Corporation concluded that the entire project was completed within the stipulated period. Accordingly, the claim of assessee u/s 80IB(10) of Rs. 1,11,55,537 was allowed by the Ld. AO vide order dated 31.03.2014. [PB 33-34] 3.This order of Ld. AO dated 31.03.2014 arising out of set-aside proceedings became the subject matter for invoking the provisions of section 263. 4.Order u/s 263 was passed by Ld. Pr.ClT on 14.03.2016. Against this order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Bench vide ITA No. 475/lnd/2016. Hon'ble Bench set aside the matter to the file of Ld. Pr.CIT directing to decide the matter after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee vide its order pronounced on 26.10.201B. [PB 35-40, 55-65] 5. Pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Bench of I TAT, order u/s 263 was passed by Ld. Pr.ClT on 20.09.2019. Against this order of Ld. Pr.ClT, the assessee is before your Honours. 6.It is submitted that in the set-aside assessment proceedings, Ld. AD verified the letter dated 29.03.2014 wherein it is specifically mentioned that the entire project was completed by the assessee within the stipulated time period. [PB 71] 7.In the letter dated 29.03.2014, it is also mentioned that a completion

Rajdhani Land & Housing

certificate has already been issued vide letter no. 275 dated 12.11.2009 by this office. This completion certificate was also placed on record before the Ld. AD. The letter further mentions that in February 200B a letter was also issued on the basis of physical verification of the property, copy of which was also placed on record before Ld. AD. [PB 68-72] B.Ld. AO based on the documentary evidences placed on record allowed the claim of the assessee u/s BO(IB)(10} of Rs. 1,11,55,537. One of the plausible views was taken by the Ld. AO based on documentary evidences, applicable law and the jurisprudence available at that point of time. 9.Enquiry conducted by Ld. AD - no lack of enquiry - The proceedings were initiated based on directions given by the Hon'ble Bench. In response to the notice issued u/s 143(2}, assessee placed on record all the necessary documents to substantiate its claim for deduction u/s BOIB(10}. Ld. AO verified and considered these documents for allowing the claim of assessee u/s BOIB(10}. 10.Application of mind by the Ld. AD It is submitted that in the set-aside assessment proceedings, Ld. AO verified the letter dated 29.03.2014 wherein it is specifically mentioned that the entire project was completed by the assessee within the stipulated time period. [PB 71] 11.There is nothing erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue owing to which proceedings u/s 263 could be initiated. 12.lt is humbly that the instant proceedings initiated u/s 263 be quashed. Considering the above facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made, documents on record both before Ld. AO and Ld. Pr. CIT and applicable judicial precedent, the revisionary proceedings invoked u/s 263 by the Ld. Pr. CIT ought to be quashed.

supporting the order of Ld. PCIT.

before us. The assessee has challenged the assumption of

jurisdiction by Ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act and have also

challenged the finding of Ld. Pr. CIT set aside the assessment order

u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2014. 6

Rajdhani Land & Housing

holding the order of Ld. A.O as erroneous and prejudicial to the

interest of revenue, we will first go through the relevant provision of

Section 263 of the Act:-

Rajdhani Land & Housing

in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order in revision under this section may be passed at any time in the case of an order which has been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub- section (2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded.

powers of revision granted by section 263 to the learned

Commissioner have four compartments. In the first place, the

learned Commissioner may call for and examine the records of any

proceedings under this Act. For calling of the record and

examination, the learned Commissioner was not required to show

any reason. It is a part of his administrative control to call for the

records and examine them. The second feature would come when he

Rajdhani Land & Housing

will judge an order passed by an Assessing Officer on culmination of

any proceedings or during the pendency of those proceedings. On an

analysis of the record and of the order passed by the Assessing

Officer, he formed an opinion that such an order is erroneous in so

far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. By this stage

the learned Commissioner was not required the assistance of the

assessee. Thereafter the third stage would come. The learned

Commissioner would issue a show-cause notice pointing out the

reasons for the formation of his belief that action under section 263

is required on a particular order of the Assessing Officer. At this

stage the opportunity to the assessee would be given. The learned

Commissioner has to conduct an inquiry as he may deem fit. After

hearing the assessee, he will pass the order. This is the fourth

compartment of this section. The learned Commissioner may annul

the order of the Assessing Officer. He may enhance the assessed

income by modifying the order.

263 of the Act both the conditions that the order must be erroneous

Rajdhani Land & Housing

and prejudicial to the interest of revenue needs to be satisfied. This

ratio stands laid down by various Hon'ble Courts.

of H.H. Maharaja Raja Power Dewas (1983) 15 Taxman 363 in para

10 of this order held that “However, the first argument, viz., that an

assessment order without compliance with the procedure laid down in

section 144B is erroneous but not prejudicial to the interests of the

revenue conferring revisional jurisdiction on the Commissioner under

section 263(1), has force. Under section 263(1) two pre-requisites must

be present before the Commissioner can exercise the revisional

jurisdiction conferred on him. First is that the order passed by the ITO

must be erroneous. Second is that the error must be such that it is

prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If the order is erroneous but

it is not prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, the Commissioner

can not exercise the revisional powers under section 263(1) of the Act.

There cannot be any prejudice to the revenue on account of the ITO's

failure to follow the procedure prescribed under section 144B, and

unless the prejudice to the interests of the revenue is shown, the

jurisdiction under section 263(1) cannot be exercised by the

Rajdhani Land & Housing

Commissioner, even though the order is erroneous. The argument that

such an order may possibly be challenged in appeal by the assessee,

and for this reason it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, has

no merit. Section 263(1) clearly contemplates that the order of

assessment itself should be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue

and this prejudice has to be proved by reference to the assessment

order only. It cannot be argued that there is some possibility of the

assessment order being challenged or revised in appeal and,

therefore, on account of this contingency, the order becomes

prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.” [emphasis supplied]

[2000] 243 ITR 83 – order pronounced on 10.02.2000 – HEAD NOTE

– "Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders

prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 1983-84 -

Whether in order to invoke section 263 Assessing Officer's order must

be erroneous and also prejudicial to revenue and if one of them is

absent, i.e., if order of Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not

prejudicial to revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to

revenue, recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) - Held, yes -

Rajdhani Land & Housing

Whether if due to an erroneous order of ITO, revenue is losing tax

lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to

interests of revenue - Held, yes - Assessee-company entered into

agreement for sale of estate of rubber plantation - As purchaser could

not pay installments as scheduled in agreement, extension of time for

payment of installments was given on condition of vendee paying

damages for loss of agricultural income and assessee passed

resolution to that effect - Assessee showed this receipt as agricultural

income - Resolution passed by assessee was not placed before

Assessing Officer - Assessing Officer accepted entry in statement of

account filed by assessee and accepted same - Commissioner under

section 263 held that said amount was not connected with

agricultural activities and was liable to be taxed under head 'Income

from other sources' - Whether, where Assessing Officer had accepted

entry in statement of account filed by assessee, in absence of any

supporting material without making any enquiry, exercise of

jurisdiction by Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified -

Held, yes

Parikh – [1995] 215 ITR 81 – order pronounced on 17.10.1994 – Para 12

Rajdhani Land & Housing

12 – “From the aforesaid, it can well be said that the well-settled

principle in considering the question as to whether an order is

prejudicial to the interests of the revenue or not is to address oneself

to the question whether the legitimate revenue due to the exchequer

has been realised or not or can be realised or not if his orders under

consideration are allowed to stand. For arriving at this conclusion, it

becomes necessary and relevant to consider whether the income in

respect of which tax is to be realised, has been subjected to tax or not

or if it is subjected to tax, whether it has been subjected to tax at a

rate at which it could yield the maximum revenue in accordance with

law or not. If income in question has been taxed and legitimate

revenue due in respect of that income had been realised, though as a

result of erroneous order having been made in that respect, in our

opinion, the Commissioner cannot exercise powers for revising the

order under section 263 merely on the basis that the order under

consideration is erroneous. If the material in that regard is available

on the record of the assessee concerned, the Commissioner cannot

exercise his powers by ignoring that material which links the income

concerned with the tax realization made thereon. The two questions

are inter-linked and the authority exercising powers under section 13

Rajdhani Land & Housing

263 is under an obligation to consider the entire material about the

existence of income and the tax which is realizable in accordance with

law and further what tax has in fact been realised under the alleged

assessment orders.[emphasis supplied]

the learned representatives, we deem it pertinent to take note of the

fundamental tests propounded in various judgments relevant for

judging the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax taken under

section 263. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Mrs.

Khaiiza S. Oomerbhoy v. ITO [2006] 101 TIJ 1095 (Mum), analysed in

detail various authoritative pronouncements including the decision

of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.

v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and has propounded the following

broader principle to judge the action of the Commissioner of Income-

tax taken under section 263.

(i) The Commissioner of Income-tax must record satisfaction that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Both the conditions must be fulfilled. (ii) Section 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer and it was only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. (iii) An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will suffice the requirement of order being erroneous. (iv) If the order is passed without application of mind, such order

Rajdhani Land & Housing

will fall under the category of erroneous order. (v) Every loss of revenue cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and if the Assessing Officer has adopted one of the courses permissible under law or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner of Income-tax does not agree. If cannot be treated as erroneous order, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable under law . (vi) If while making the assessment, the Assessing Officer examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determine the income, the Commissioner of Income-tax, while exercising his power under section 263 is not permitted to substitute his estimate of income in place of the income estimated by the Assessing Officer. (vii) The Assessing Officer exercises quasi-judicial power vested in him and if he exercises such power in accordance with law and arrive at a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner of Income-tax does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. (viii) The Commissioner of Income-tax, before exercising his jurisdiction under section 263 must have material on record to arrive at a satisfaction. (ix) If the Assessing Officer has made enquiries during the course assessment proceedings on the relevant issues and the assessee has detailed explanation by a letter in writing and the Assessing allows the claim on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the decision of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be simply because in his order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.

referred hereinabove. We observe that the issue of section 80IB(10)

of the Act raised in the instant case has come up before this

Tribunal and the same are decided vide order dated 25.04.2012

directing the ld. AO to decide the issue afresh in light of various

documents furnished. The relevant extract of the order of Tribunal is

mentioned below: 15

Rajdhani Land & Housing

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of civil construction, development and building housing projects. During the year, under consideration, the return was filed at an income of Rs. 1,58,470/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act for Rs.1,11,55,537/-. In the course of assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO declined the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act which was further confirmed by the learned CIT(A) and the assessee is in further appeal before us.

Rajdhani Land & Housing

possession was handed over to the respective buyers after receiving the sale consideration. Thus, the modus operandi adopted by the assessee for sale of house nowhere stands in the way for claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. The contention of the learned CIT DR was that the assessee has merely sold plots to the buyers and the buyers have paid stamp duty on purchase of such plots of land which falls u/s 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908, therefore, transfer of land has taken place on the date of registration and the assessee has received consideration for the same. As per the learned CIT DR in such a situation, the assessee was no more the owner of the land. The work of construction was done by the assessee according to the requirements of each land buyer and as such it was merely in the capacity of works contractor. Thereafter, relying on the decision in the case of B.D. Patil & Sons; 35 SOT 171 he contended that the assessee was not eligible for claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act in terms of Explanation so inserted. We have carefully gone through the decision in the case of B.D. Patil & Sons (supra), the facts of which are entirely different wherein the claim was made for deduction u/s 80-IA in respect of development, maintenance and operation of infra-structure facilities. However, in the instant case before us, the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB(10) is with respect to the housing project and not for any infra- structure facility. Accordingly, the proposition laid down therein cannot be applied to the assessee's case. There is no dispute to the well settled proposition to the effect that the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act is only available to the developers and not to the contractors, meaning thereby that in addition to the construction of the houses, the assessee is also required to undertake development of infra- structure facilities like severages, electricity, roads, etc. Thus, mere construction of the houses does not come under the purview of the definition of 'developer'. In the instant case, it is not clear as to what infra- structure facilities have been developed by the assessee firm in respect of the housing project for which approval has been obtained from the Municipal Corporation on 13.12.2004 and 10.5.2005. In the letter dated 12.11.2009 the Municipal Authority, Bhopal, had intimated the AO vide its letter no. 275 that in respect of permission no. 279 dated 10.5.2005, Khasra Nos. 36, 41 and 44, the assessee had constructed the houses. There is no mention as to completion of project as a whole. In the interest of justice, we restore this issue to the file of the AO for deciding it afresh after making full inquiry with regard to the infra-structure facilities developed by the assessee in terms of approval for the housing project so granted by Municipal Authority, Bhopal, in addition to the construction of the houses and more precisely in terms of our above observation. We direct accordingly.

Rajdhani Land & Housing

the way of allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IOB(10) of the Act. Even where the approval is given in the names of partners who have contributed land to the firm for execution of the housing project, the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act cannot be declined provided other conditions of section 80IB(10) of the Act are fulfilled by the assessee. Thus, we do not find any merit in the observation of the AO for declining the claim of deduction on the plea of the project approval being issued in the names of partners of the firm in place of the firm itself.

"7. We have considered the rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and relevant material placed on record towards which our attention was invited during the course of hearing by the ld.

Authorized Representative and the ld. Senior D.R. Provisions of Section 80IB allows claim for deduction in respect of housing project, which has been approved prior to 1.4.2004 and also completed before 31.3.2008. During the course of assessment with regard to assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of its D.K.Honey Homes Project, the AO has asked the assessee to furnish the certificate of completion of this project M/s. D.K. Honey Homes. The AO also directly called information from local authorities by issuing summons u/s 133(6) and a letter was issued by the competent authority dated 11th November, 2008, confirming that no completion certificate has been issued by this office. Accordingly, the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80-IB was declined. Section 80IB clearly defines the date of completion as "Date of completion of construction of the

Rajdhani Land & Housing

Housing Project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the Local Authorities", it means Local Authorities is competent to certify the date of completion of Housing Project. The date of issue of such letter by the Local Authorities is not so crucial but it should have clearly mentioned the date of completion of project. When the Project is completed on 31.3.2008 and the assessee has informed regarding such completion, the Local Authorities may take its own time for issue of certificate, which may be even after 6- 7 months, but the letter so issued by the Local Authorities should clearly mention the date of completion of such project. Merely because such certificate is issued after gap of 8-9 months or even one year, will not adversely affect the assessee if it has mentioned clearly the date of completion of project prior to 31.3.2008. Once the letter for completion of project is given by the assessee to the Local Authority, it is the duty of the Local Authority to verify physically the Projects stated to be completed from its own parameters. This process may take time and, therefore, the date of issue of letter is not so crucial to determine the assessee's eligibility for claim of deduction as per Explanation (ii) of Section 80IB(10)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. What is crucial is date mentioned in the letter so issued certifying completion of the Project. Thus, the date of issue of letter is not important, but the date mentioned in the letter certifying completion of project is important. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the observation of the lower authorities to the effect that the date of completion shall be taken the date on which certificate is physically issued by the Local Authorities.

proceedings afresh on the direction of this Tribunal and issued a

Rajdhani Land & Housing

notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 20.01.2014 along with query letter

calling for various details and documents in order to verify the

deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Relevant details were filed and all

the evidences were examined. This fact is discernable from para 1.3

of the assessment order dated 31.03.2014 wherein Ld. AO has made

following observation:

1.3The case was transferred to this office by the order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Bhopal u/s 127(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2014. A notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 29.03.2014 itself fixing the case for hearing on 30.03.2014. Shri Rakesh Nema, advocate attended hearing of the case held on 30.03.2014 and stated that all the details required vide questionnaire issued to the assessee have already been furnished during the course of assessment proceedings before the DCIT-1(1), Bhopal and are available on record and as per direction of Hon'ble I.T.A.T.’s direction the assessee has furnished all necessary documents along with submission which is placed on record. On verification of clarification letter dated 29.03.2014 issued by Bhopal Municipal Corporation, it is found that entire project of the assessee was completed within stipulated period is found correct. Hence claim of the assessee u/s 80IB(10) is considered and allowed deduction u/s 1,11,55,537/-. 2.1 In view of the above facts, income of the assessee as offered in its return is hereby accepted.”

certificate issued by Bhopal Municipal Corporation dated

06.06.2009 and again a clarification letter dated 29.03.2014 which

was directly called by the Ld. AO assert the fact that the housing

project was completed within the stipulated time as provided u/s

80IB(10) of the Act and accordingly claim u/s 80IB(10) of the Act

Rajdhani Land & Housing

was allowed. We further find that the impugned order Ld. Pr. CIT

has not made any independent enquiry even after observing that the

Ld. AO has allowed the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act after

obtaining the completion certificate, still held that no enquiries were

conducted to examine the genuineness of completion of housing

project. In our opinion under the provision of section 80IB(10)

assessee has to obtain a completion certificate from a competent

authority which in this case is the Bhopal Municipal Corporation

which is a statutory body working under a separate Act. Once the

Bhopal Municipal Corporation has given a certificate that housing

project has been completed on a certain dates, Revenue authorities

cannot deny the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act alleging that the

housing project is not complete. In case they are not satisfied with

the contents of the completion certificate issued by Bhopal

Municipal Corporation, they have option to file a writ before the

Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court but certainly they cannot deny the

claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act which the assesse has

claimed after obtaining all necessary certificate as well as the

certificate from the Chartered Accountant and having fulfilled all the

requirements of the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act. 21

Rajdhani Land & Housing

case are of the considered view that the Ld. AO has conducted

sufficient enquiry, called for all necessary details and made proper application of mind and thus it can be safely concluded that the

order u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2014 is neither erroneous nor

prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We, thus, quash the impugned

order of Ld. Pr. CIT framed u/s 263 of the Act and restore the

assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2014 and allow the

grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal.

appeal filed by the assessee in ITANo.975/Ind/2019 is allowed.

Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T. Rules 1963 on 16.08.2021.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANISH BORAD) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Indore; �दनांक Dated : 16.08.2021 Patel/PS Copy to: Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/Guard file. By order Assistant Registrar, Indore 22