U C JAIN & SONS,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 3, HARIDWAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to produce the completion certificate within 90 days. The AO is to consider the certificate and proceed accordingly.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80IB(10) for Rs. 46,48,743/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed this deduction, and the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, citing the lack of a completion certificate.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IB(10) without a completion certificate, and whether interest under Section 234B is leviable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN
Before: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.
ORDER
Per Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member:
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun dated 20.04.2017 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
2. The assessment order has been passed against the assessee by disallowing deduction under Section 80IB(10) of Rs.46,48,743/-. 3. The assessee has travelled to CIT(A) by way of appeal. Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the AO insofar as disallowance of Rs.46,48,473/- is concerned and observed hereunder:
2 UC Jain & Sons “14. As regards the disallowance on account of plots of land, the assessee has furnished copies of some sale deeds which show that buildings had been constructed on the said land but the covered area and the vacant land had been valued separately for the purposes of stamp duty. Thus adverse inference on such account seems unwarranted. Of course this would not actually be of relevance now because the completion certificate and other documents which are required to demonstrate completion, as per approved plan have not been furnished, so the assessee is in any case not entitled to any benefit under Section 80IB(10).”
As against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has preferred the present appeal on following grounds:
“1. That the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad both in law and facts and circumstances of the case.
That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the deduction of Rs.46,48,743/- claimed u/s.80IB(10) of the Act on the alleged ground that the appellant had not obtained the completion certificate from the local authority.
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the interest levied
None appeared for the Assessee. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration.
The Assessee had claimed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act, but not produced any documents to show that the Assessee has completed the project and delay in obtaining the completion certificate was only on account of internal working of the local authority. The Ld AO has disallowed the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act for non production of the completion certificate. In our considered view, in the interest of justice, if an opportunity is given to the assesse to produce the completion certificate issued by the local authority in a stipulated time, which can be verified by the Assessing Officer and the benefit under Section 80IB(10) can be given in accordance with law. Therefore, we deem it fit to remand the issue to the file of ld. AO with a direction to the assessee to produce the completion certificate before the AO within 90 days from the date of receipt of this Order, the ld. AO shall consider the completion certificate and proceed in accordance with law. Failure to produce completion certificate by the assessee, the Department is at liberty to recover the tax in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 29/04/2022.
More judgments on Section 80IB(10)
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Cosmos Constructions, ThaneITA 8234/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- ACIT-24(1), Piramal Chambers vs Atul Properties, MumbaiITA 8043/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-24(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers vs Atul Properties, MumbaiITA 8042/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2026AY 2012-13
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Cosmos Enterprises, ThaneITA 8209/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2010-11
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Cosmos Enterprises, ThaneITA 8208/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2009-10
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026