SANGEETA HANUMANT NAZIRKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, SATARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1964/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 February 2019AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted a discrepancy in the plot area between the assessment order and the sanctioned plan. It set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IB(10) for a project. The Assessing Officer denied the deduction as the plot size was less than one acre, which is a mandatory condition. The CIT(A) upheld this denial.

What were the issues?

Whether the plot size of the project met the minimum one-acre requirement for deduction under Section 80IB(10).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IB(10)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Deepak S. Sasar
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli

PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A)-4, Pune on 17-09-2018 in relation to the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

The first ground about passing of assessment order in the hands of a wrong person was not pressed by the ld. AR. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

3.

The second ground is against the denial of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’).

2 ITA No.1964/PUN/2018 Sangeeta Hanumant Nazirkar

4.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee

claimed deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. The AO observed

that one of the conditions required for making such a claim,

namely, that the project should be on the size of the plot of

land which has minimum area of one acre, was not fulfilled.

He observed that the project was completed on a plot of

3742.20 sq. mtrs., which was less than one acre. He,

therefore, denied the deduction. The ld. CIT(A) did not allow

any relief on this score, against which the assessee has come

up in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant

material on record. The ld. AR contended that the authorities

below erred in considering the area of plot at less than one

acre. In support of his submission, he relied on Sanctioned

plan and Commencement letter, copies of which have been

placed at page 21 etc. of the paper book. The ld. AR

contended that as per this Plan, the total area is more than the

stipulated one, which aspect has not been properly considered.

In view of the fact that there is some difference in the area set

out in the assessment order and given in the Sanctioned plan, I

am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would

3 ITA No.1964/PUN/2018 Sangeeta Hanumant Nazirkar

meet adequately if the impugned order is set aside and the

matter is restored to the file of AO. I order accordingly and

direct him to decide the issue afresh in the light of the

Sanctioned plan and other relevant documents. Needless to

say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of

hearing by the AO in the fresh proceedings.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st February, 2019. Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा�य� उपा�य�/ VICE PRESIDENT उपा�य� उपा�य�

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 21st February, 2019 सतीश आदेश क� क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / 3. The CIT (Appeals)-3, Pune 4. The Pr. CIT-2, Pune िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / 5. DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. // True copy // 6.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार

// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

ITA No.1964/PUN/2018 Sangeeta Hanumant Nazirkar

Date 1. Draft dictated on 20-02-2019 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 20-02-2019 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed JM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved JM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *

More judgments on Section 80IB(10)

All 838 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IB(10) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →