TRIDENT PROPERTIES JV,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), COIMBATORE

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captionedappeal filed by the Assesseeis directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] dated03.10.2025 for Assessment Years 2008-09. 2. Brief facts of the case: The assessee, a Joint Venture engaged in the business of development and construction of residential housing projects, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09 on 23.10.2008 declaring nil income after claiming deduction of Rs.47,32,760/- u/s. 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

ITA No 3142/Chny/2025 (AY 2008-09) Trident Properties JV Vs ITO, NCW 1(1) :: 2 :: 2.1 The assessment was reopened u/s. 147 to examine the allowability of deduction claimed u/s. 80IB(10). The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the housing project consisted of three blocks, namely Blocks A, B and C. Since Block B was not completed within the prescribed period, the AO held that the assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB(10) and disallowed the entire claim of Rs.47,32,760/-.The disallowance was confirmed by the CIT(A). On further appeal, the Tribunal, following its earlier order in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2012-13 in ITA No.3138/Mds/2016 dated 15.05.2018, restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh examination. The direction of the Tribunal at para 7 is as under: "7. In view of the above, the assessee cannot be blamed for non-production of completion certificate from Corporation of Coimbatore. From the material available on record, it appears that the assessee has constructed a multistoried building. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has to examine and find out who is the competent authority for granting planning permission and building approval under Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. If the Assessing Officer finds that the planning permission has to be obtained from Corporation of Coimbatore, as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and rules made thereunder and Coimbatore Municipality Act, the Assessing Officer cannot find fault with the assessee for nonproduction of completion certificate, since the Corporation of Coimbatore has suspended the issue of completion certificate as per the Resolution reproduced hereinabove. If the Assessing Officer comes to a conclusion after examining the provisions of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and rules made thereunder and Coimbatore Municipality Act that the competent authority for granting approval is other than the Corporation of Coimbatore, then an opportunity shall be given to the assessee to produce the completion certificate from such authority who is competent to grant building approval as per the statutory provisions. 8. With the above observation, the orders of the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-

ITA No 3142/Chny/2025 (AY 2008-09) Trident Properties JV Vs ITO, NCW 1(1) :: 3 :: examine the matter afresh as indicated above and thereafter decide the issue, in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee."

2.2 Pursuant to the Tribunal's directions (supra), the AOexamined the completion certificate dated 05.06.2017 relating to Blocks A and C, inspection reports and certificates issued by the Corporation authorities. The AO recorded findings that:

(i) the project was constructed on land exceeding one acre; (ii) the residential units were within the prescribed built-up area limit of 1500 sq.ft.; (iii) there was no commercial construction; (iv) all other conditions prescribed u/s. 80IB(10) stood satisfied in respect of Blocks A and C.

However, instead of deciding the issue on the basis of the directions issued by the Tribunal, the AO denied deduction on a completely different ground, namely that the return of income was filed on 23.10.2008 beyond the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1), and therefore the deduction was barred by section 80AC. 3. On appeal to CIT(A), the ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO holding that the Tribunal had restored the entire issue of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) and therefore the AO was entitled to examine the applicability of section 80AC. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Before us issues involved are: 1. Whether, in the set-aside proceedings, the Assessing Officer was justified in denying deduction u/s. 80IB(10) on the ground of delayed filing of return u/s. 80AC. 2. Whether the scope of remand directed by the Tribunal in ITA No.3138/Mds/2016 was confined to verification of completion certificate and fulfillment of conditions relating to the housing project.

ITA No 3142/Chny/2025 (AY 2008-09) Trident Properties JV Vs ITO, NCW 1(1) :: 4 :: 3. Whether, after recording a categorical finding that all conditions prescribed u/s. 80IB(10) stood satisfied, the deduction could still be denied on a fresh ground not arising from the original dispute before the Tribunal. 4.1 We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.The controversy originally arose because the deduction u/s. 80IB(10) was denied on the ground that the assessee had not produced a completion certificate in respect of the housing project. The Tribunal, in the assessee's own case in ITA No.3138/Mds/2016, specifically dealt with the issue relating to the competent authority for issuance of completion certificate and the consequences arising from the policy of the Corporation of Coimbatore not issuing such certificates.In paragraph 7 of its order, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to ascertain the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and to examine the issue of completion certificate in that context. The Tribunal further directed that, if another authority was competent to issue such certificate, an opportunity should be afforded to the assessee to produce the same.The remand directions contained in paragraph 8 have necessarily to be read in conjunction with paragraph 7. The expression "entire issue" occurring in paragraph 8 cannot be read in isolation. The issue remitted was the issue arising from denial of deduction on account of alleged non- fulfillment of project completion requirements. The remand was therefore issue-specific and not intended to reopen concluded matters which were never disputed in the original assessment or appellate proceedings.In the set-aside proceedings, the AO has recorded a clear finding that: (a) the project land exceeded one acre; (b) the residential units were within the prescribed size limit;

ITA No 3142/Chny/2025 (AY 2008-09) Trident Properties JV Vs ITO, NCW 1(1) :: 5 :: (c) there was no commercial construction; (d) all conditions prescribed u/s. 80IB(10) stood satisfied in respect of Blocks A and C.

Therefore, the very purpose for which the matter was remitted stood satisfied.Once the AO found compliance with the directions issued by the Tribunal, he was required to grant the deduction in accordance with law. Instead, he introduced a completely new issue regarding applicability of section 80AC which neither formed part of the original assessment dispute nor constituted the subject matter of remand before the Tribunal. 4.2 It is a settled principle that an authority acting pursuant to a remand order cannot travel beyond the scope of directions issued by the appellate authority. The jurisdiction in remand proceedings is circumscribed by the terms of remand. The AOcannot enlarge the scope of enquiry by introducing altogether new grounds for disallowance unconnected with the controversy remitted for adjudication. 4.3 In the present case, the original denial of deduction was not based on section 80AC. The assessment order, appellate order and the earlier Tribunal proceedings proceeded exclusively on the issue of completion of the housing project and production of completion certificate. Therefore, the AO exceeded the scope of remand in invoking section 80AC during the set-aside proceedings.We further note that the assessee has already filed condonation petitions before the competent authority. Be that as it may, in the present proceedings the limited question is whether the AO could deny deduction on a fresh ground beyond the remand directions. In our considered view, the answer is in the negative.

ITA No 3142/Chny/2025 (AY 2008-09) Trident Properties JV Vs ITO, NCW 1(1) :: 6 :: 4.4 Accordingly, we hold that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of the AO. The findings of the CIT(A) that the remand permitted examination of entirely new issues are unsustainable. The remand directions in ITA No.3138/Mds/2016 were confined to examination of the completion certificate issue and consequential eligibility u/s. 80IB(10). Since the AO himself has accepted fulfilment of all conditions prescribed u/s. 80IB(10), the deduction cannot be denied on a new ground introduced in the set-aside proceedings.We therefore set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow deduction u/s. 80IB(10) amounting to Rs.47,32,760/-.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 01st day of June 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (प�ावती एस) (मनु कुमार िग#र) (PADMAVATHY S) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद$या/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %या�यक सद$य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

चे%नई/Chennai, 'दनांक/Dated: 01st June, 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS

आदेश क� ��त(ल)प अ*े)षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF