ITAT Pune Judgments — March 2023

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal and the lack of objection from the Revenue. Accordingly, permission to withdraw the appeal was granted. The Tribunal's decision is based on the assessee's explicit request to not pursue the matter further and the Revenue's acquiescence. The operative direction is to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No other issues were decided on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) needs to be set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee initially admitted the gold as undisclosed income, he later claimed it was converted from family jewellery. Crucially, a 'Movable Property Return' of the assessee's wife, Mrs. Siddhi Sachin Sankpal, was found during the search, which indicated she possessed 120 tolas (1200 grams) of gold. Although this document was found during the search and was available to the lower authorities, it was not referred to in their orders. The Tribunal found that this document was significant and could explain the source of the gold. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,10,000/- was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Ground No. 1 was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding Ground No. 2, the Tribunal upheld the legality of the assessment order under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) because a search was conducted in the assessee's name and gold was seized, constituting incriminating material. However, in light of the set-aside addition, Ground No. 2 was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a letter seeking withdrawal of the appeals. The Learned DR for the Revenue stated that they had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the assessee as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made, as the appeals were disposed of based on the assessee's request for withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a letter seeking withdrawal of the appeals. The Learned DR for the Revenue stated that they had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the assessee as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made, as the appeals were disposed of based on the assessee's request for withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a letter seeking withdrawal of the appeals. The Learned DR for the Revenue stated that they had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the assessee as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made, as the appeals were disposed of based on the assessee's request for withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act, even on a proportionate basis, when the entire project has not been completed within the stipulated time. The Tribunal noted that the commencement certificate was issued on March 30, 2007, and the project was required to be completed before January 31, 2012. A partial completion certificate dated November 10, 2011, indicated that only 6 buildings out of 28 were completed along with parking and 12 floors, and crucially, the 22 bungalows were not completed by the mandated date. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in granting pro-rata deduction on eligible units when the entire project was not completed within the stipulated time. This decision was based on the Tribunal's own precedent in Vijay Tukaram Raundal, which followed the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company & others, emphasizing strict adherence to exemption provisions. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the grounds raised by the Revenue were allowed. No issue was expressly left undecided.