Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune dated 10.03.2017 for the assessment year 2010-11.
The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1] The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition amounting to Rs. 62,35,490/- made on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80-IB(10) of the Act, which is patently illegal and may please be deleted. 2] The Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. AO have erred in holding that the conditions prescribed for claiming the deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) of the Act are not fulfilled and therefore the deduction claimed is not admissible. 2.1] The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the land area of the housing project was less than 1 Acre and while doing so he has erred in not considering the sanctioned plan of Gram Panchayat as well as 7/12 extracts which clearly state the land area to be exceeding 1 Acre. 2.2] The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that Town Planning Authority in its certificate dated 08.02.2017 has certified the area of housing project to be more than 1 Acre. 2.3] The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that both Ld. AO as well as valuer appointed u/s. 131(1)(d) of the Act have erred in not considering the land area of access road purchased by the appellant subsequently for which easement rights were available with the assessee right from the beginning. 3] Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in holding that the order of Town Planning Authority will prevail over that of Gram Panchayat, even when he himself has accepted Gram Panchayat as competent authority. 4] The appellant reserves its right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.”
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction, development of residential/commercial project. The return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 was filed on 13.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs.1,18,560/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(4), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 25.03.2013 passed us 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.63,54,051/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for deduction of Rs.62,35,490/- claimed u/s 80IB(10) on the ground that the land on 1 acre placing reliance on the report submitted by the Government Registered Valuer and the permission given by Gram Panchayat.
Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order, while concurring with the assessee that the Gram Panchayat was also a competent authority for sanction of plan, had disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the area of land in which the project was developed, is less than 1 acre and also taking into consideration the fact that subsequently the appellant had purchased land in existing area makes no difference as at the time of permission was sought from the Gram Panchayat being the competent authority for sanction of plan, the area of land is less than 1 acre.
Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us with the above extracted grounds of appeal
6. When the matter was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. However, the appellant had filed written submission vide letter dated 29.03.2022.