ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. SHRI HEMRAJ SHANKARLAL MUNDADA,, PUNE

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” �यायपीठ पुणे म� । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE �ी डी. क�णाकरा राव, लेखा सद�य एवं �ी िवकास अव�थी, �याियक सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1306/PUN/2017 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2008-09 ACIT, Circle-3, .......अपीलाथ� / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/s. Shri Hemraj Shankarlal Mundada, Office No.16/1, Parvati Chambers, Karve Road, Pune-411038. PAN : AAXPM1636P ……��यथ� / Respondent Revenue by : Mrs. Shabana Parveen Assessee by : Shri Vipin Gujrathi सुनवाई क� तारीख / Date of Hearing : 28.08.2019 घोषणा क� तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 30.08.2019 आदेश / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-3, Pune dated 10.01.2017 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under :- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 1,91,39,886/- u/s 80IB(10) in respect of project “Hill View Residency” without appreciating the fact that the specific condition of Section 80IB(10)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act was not satisfied. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the import of Section 80IB(10) which speaks about sanction to the ‘housing project and not to the individual buildings in the project. 3. The appellant prays that order of the Ld. CIT(A) be held to be bad in law and quashed and also restore back the order of the A.O.

2 ITA No.1306/PUN/2017 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or omit any or all the above grounds of appeal during the course of the appellate proceedings.” 3. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is a case where the housing project i.e. “Hill View Residency” involves the construction of five buildings and the Building No.D was incomplete. Otherwise, building A, B, C & E was completed undisputedly. Ignoring the “principle of proportion” in matters of allowing the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act and also ignoring the Buildings No.A, B, C and E were completed, the Assessing Officer denied the entire claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. However, considering the facts and principle of proportion, the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee relying on the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2006-07 vide ITA No.1328/PUN/2009 dated 03.02.2014. Of course, the Revenue is in appeal before the Hon’ble High Court for this year 2006-07. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. On hearing both the sides on this limited issue of Rule of proportionate deduction and perusing the contents of para 6.3 of the order of the CIT(A), we find the CIT(A) rightly granted the relief to the assessee. For the sake of completeness, the contents of para 6.3 of the order of the CIT(A) are extracted hereunder:- “6.3 DECISION:- I have perused the assessment order and the submission made by the appellant as above carefully. I find from the appellant submission that the Hon’ble Pune ITAT ‘A’ Bench in appellant own case vide order dated 03/02/2014 in ITA No.1328/PN/2009 had allowed the appellant the deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act for A.Y. 2006- 07 holding in para 7.6 of the said order as below-

3 ITA No.1306/PUN/2017 “……….. 7.6 Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in various other decisions relied on by Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Since in the instant case the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect of Buildings A, B, C on which profit has been earned on sale of units and the completion certificate has been obtained before the statutory date and none of the units in the above building is in excess 1500 sq.ft., therefore, following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Runwal Multihousing Pvt. Ltd., (Supra) and various other decisions we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 80IB(10) in respect of buildings A, B and C of the project “Hill View Residency”.” 6. Thus, the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee relying on the finding in own case and also other cases. Considering the above, we find the order of the CIT(A) is fair and reasonable on this issue and it does not call for any interference. Thus, the relevant grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 30th day of August, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (िवकास अव�थी /VIKAS AWASTHY) (डी. क�णाकरा राव/D. KARUNAKARA RAO) �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 30th August, 2019. Sujeet आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A)-3, Pune. 4. The Pr. CCIT, Pune. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.