Mateshwari Developers,, Raigad vs Department Of Income Tax

Income Tax Officer, Ward (2), Panvel .... Cross Objector

Vs.

M/s. Mateshwari Developers SRDV Chawl, Room No.1, Akurli Village, Panvel, Raigad. .... Respondent

PAN: AALFM7324C

ITA No.142/PN/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-07

Income Tax Officer, Ward (2), Panvel .... Appellant

Vs.

M/s. Mateshwari Developers SRDV Chawl, Room No.1, Akurli Village, Panvel, Raigad. .... Respondent

PAN: AALFM7324C

Assessee by : Sunil U. Pathak Revenue by : Rajesh Damor Date of hearing : 03-12-2014 Date of pronouncement : 30-01-2015 2 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

ORDER

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:

Out of this bunch of files, the appeal in ITA No.214/PN/2009 is

filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-I, Thane, dated

28.11.2008 relating to assessment year 2005-06 against order passed

under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue has

filed the Cross Objections against the appeal filed by the assessee

relating to assessment year 2005-06. Further, the Revenue has also

filed an appeal against the order of CIT(A)-I, Thane, dated 15.10.2009,

relating to assessment year 2006-07 against order passed under

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. All the three appeals relating to the same assessee were heard

together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the

sake of convenience.

3. The assessee in ITA No.214/PN/2009 has raised the following

grounds of appeal:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowances made by Assessing Officer, of lawful claim of exemption of income u/s 80IB(10) Rs.39,32,000/- by assessee.

2. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, the learned CIT(A) confirmed disallowances made by AO u/s 80IB(10) without verifying the evidence and facts submitted by assessee at the time of hearing before him.

3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law in not considering affidavit of Architect and approved plan by Collector, Alibag.

4. The learned CIT (A) erred in law by not considering at all Tribunal decisions submitted by assessee at the time of hearing.

5. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts by confirming disallowance made by AO of Rs.14,50,023/- u/s 40(ia).

3 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

6. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts by confirming disallowance made by AO of Transport Charges including cost of material Rs.13,16,955/- u/s 40(ia).

7. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and facts by confirming disallowance made by AO of third party expenditure Rs.3,73,000/- treating as unaccounted expenditure.

8. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts by confirming addition made by AO for extra work done @ 8% of third party receipts Rs.36,860/-

9. The Learned CIT (A) in reaching to the conclusion and confirming such huge additions omitted to consider relevant factors, considerations, principles and evidences submitted by assessee, while he was overwhelmed, influenced and prejudiced by irrelevant consideration and factor including survey u/s 133 A.

10. The appellant craves, leave to add, amend or modify any grounds of appeal on or before final hearing of appeal.

4. The Revenue in CO No.40/PN/2011 has raised the following

grounds of objections:-

1. The assessee has erred in stating that the Hon. CIT(A) has confirmed the denial of deduction u/s 80IB(10) without verifying the evidence.

2. The assessee has failed to appreciate that the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.14,50,023/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of labour charges, was made by the Hon.CIT(A) after due consideration of facts and law.

3. The assessee has failed to appreciate that the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.13,16,955/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of transport charges, was made by the Hon.CIT(A) after due consideration of facts and law.

4. The assessee has failed to appreciate that the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.3,73,000/- on account of unaccounted expenses, was made by the Hon. CIT(A) after due consideration of facts and law.

5. The assessee has failed to appreciate that the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.36,860/- for unaccounted business receipts, was made by the Hon. CIT(A) after due consideration of facts and law.

6. The claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10), is not available to the assessee for the following reasons -

4 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

a) In the present case, the original plan was sanctioned on 28.10.1995 whereas the provisions of sec. 80IB(10) came into existence w.e.f. 01.10.1998 and applicable for the projects in which the plans are approved after 01.10.1998. Thus, in the instant case the provisions of sec. 80IB(10) are not applicable. Therefore, the Hon. ITAT is requested to consider this fact while deciding the issue on the appeal filed by the assessee.

b) In the present case, the revised plan was claimed to be passed somewhere in the year 2003 (no proof has been submitted from the competent authority). As per the explanation to the provisions of sec 80IB(10) in the cases where the approval in respect of the housing project is obtained more than once, such housing project shall be deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority. Therefore, as the original plan was sanctioned on 28.10.1995, the deduction u/s 80IB(10) is not available to this project. The Hon. ITAT is requested to consider this fact while deciding the issue on the appeal filed by the assessee.

c) During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has failed to furnish the commencement certificate of the project, copy of sanction plan duly approved by competent authority which are mandatory requirements to fulfill the conditions laid down for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the I.T. Act.

Therefore, the Hon. ITAT is requested to consider this fact while deciding the issue on the appeal filed by the assessee.

7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any ground/ grounds, which may be necessary.

5. The first issue raised by the assessee vide grounds of appeal

No.1 to 3 is against the denial of deduction under section 80IB(10) of

the Act.

6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee was a builder

and during the year under consideration, was developing two projects

namely Apeksha Complex and Mateswari Complex at Village Akurli,

Panvel. The Apeksha Complex, as per the assessee was a residential

cum commercial project, whereas Mateswari Complex was purely

residential complex. The assessee had claimed deduction under 5 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

section 80IB(10) of the Act and had filed the return of income at Nil.

The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings,

noted that the assessee had not enclosed the Form No.10CCB along

with return of income. However, from the perusal of Form No.10CCB

enclosed with the return of income relating to assessment year 2006-

07, it was noted by the Assessing Officer that the local authority

mentioned was Alibag Collector Office. The Assessing Officer further

noted certain points in the Audit Report furnished in Form No.10CCB

for assessment year 2006-07. As per the said Audit Report, the date of

commencement of the operation by the undertaking was 22.11.2002

whereas the assessee firm had come into existence on 25.10.2002. In

column 14(q), the date of approval by the local authority was

mentioned as 16.04.2003. However, on going through the return for

financial year 2003-04 i.e. year ending 31.03.2004, the Assessing

Officer found that there was closing work-in-progress of

Rs.1,05,90,758/-, meaning thereby that the project was initiated in

financial year 2003-04. The opening work-in-progress in the financial

year 2003-04 was only Rs.1,21,120/-. The Assessing Officer thus,

concluded that the project was started even before approval by the

appropriate authority. The assessee had failed to enclose the copy of

approval by the local authority along with return of income. In the

Form No.10CCB filed relating to assessment year 2006-07, in column

7, the Auditor mentioned the deduction under section 80IA of the Act

being claimed. However, the eligible undertaking was entitled only to

the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act in the case of housing

projects. Further, the spot enquiries confirmed that there were 23

shops in J and K buildings. However, in the Audit Report, there was

no mention of any commercial shops in the project. The assessee was 6 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

asked to explain whether it fulfills the conditions laid down in section

80IB(10) of the Act. The assessee did not submit any reply. In order

to verify the claim of assessee under section 80IB(10) of the Act,

survey under section 133A of the Act was undertaken on 30.08.2007.

During the course of survey, the physical measurements of flats and

shops were taken by the survey team. The details of area of flats and

shops of both the complexes were tabulated in Annexure-2 attached to

the assessment order. It was found that Apeksha Complex had

commercial area of more than 2000 sq. ft. During the course of survey

proceedings, plan signed by Sarpanch in Bundle-1, at document

Nos.12 and 13 was found, which reflected the commercial area.

However, there was no date on this plan. The document further

confirms that the shops measuring 4667 sq. ft. were commercial area,

even in the map of Village Grampanchayat, though the same

Grampanchayat was not the approving authority. The approving

authority in the case was District Collector, Alibag. During the course

of survey, statement of Shri Babubhai Patel, one of the partners was

recorded on 30.08.2007, in which he confirmed the area of shops

being more than 2000 sq. ft. The partner of the assessee firm further

confronted with the fact that for claiming deduction under section

80IB(10) of the Act in assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07, it was

mandatory that the plan should be approved by the local authority

and he was asked the date of approval and date of application seeking

approval from local authority. In reply, he explained that for Apeksha

Complex, application was made to the Collector, Alibag in the year

2003 and the approval was received in the year 2003 itself. As regards

the copy of the application, it was submitted that the same was lost in

floods.

7 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010

M/s. Mateshwari Developers

7. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was

again confronted with the above said facts and in the absence of any

explanation furnished by the assessee and also non-production of

required approval i.e. certificate from the District Collector, Alibag, the

Assessing Officer was of the view that the project of assessee was not

eligible for claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. The

said deduction was not allowed on account of two issues i.e. the

commercial area in the housing project exceeded 5% of the aggregate

built up area or 2000 sq. ft., whichever was less and further, the

assessee had not furnished any approval from the appropriate

authority in respect of the said project.

8. The CIT(A) observed that filing of Audit Report in Form

No.10CCB along with the return of income was mandatory for claiming

the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Since the assessee

had not filed the said Form No.10CCB along with return of income, the

CIT(A) held that the assessee had violated the specific conditions given

in section 80IA(7) of the Act, which is applicable to section 80IB(10) of

the Act, in view of the provisions of section 80IB(13) of the Act.

Further, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee along with the return of

income filed for assessment year 2006-07 had annexed the Audit

Report in Form No.10CCB, which reflected in item No.9 that the initial

assessment year from when deduction was claimed was 31.03.2006

i.e. assessment year 2006-07. The CIT(A) thus, observed that the

same clearly shows that the assessee was intending to claim deduction

under section 80IB(10) of the Act from assessment year 2006-07.

Further, in the Form No.10CCB, the assessee had claimed deduction

under section 80IA(a) and 80IB(10) of the Act, meaning thereby that

the assessee had not filed the Form No.10CCB along with the return of 8 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

income for assessment year 2005-06. Another point noted by the

CIT(A) was that in the acknowledgement for filing the return of income

for assessment year 2005-06, the assessee had typed "Certificate and

Report" in item No.6 of list of documents attached with the return.

However, Form No.10CCB had been added later on in ink.

9. The CIT(A) further held that the local authority for passing the

building project in Village Akurli, could not be the Collector, Alibag

and further, the assessee had not submitted the approval letter of

Collector, Alibag during the course of assessment proceedings or even

during the course of appellate proceedings. The assessee had only

furnished the copy of letter of housing plan sanctioned by the office of

Collector, Alibag, which in turn was only a letter giving NA permission

and was not a sanction letter for housing project. Further, in Form

No.10CCB filed along with the return of income for assessment year

2006-07, the assessee had mentioned the date of commencement of

the project as 22.11.2002 and the date of approval by the local

authority as 16.04.2003, which clearly shows that the project was

started without any sanction of the local authority. Further, the said

sanction order dated 16.04.2003 was neither furnished before the

Assessing Officer nor before the CIT(A).

10. Another aspect considered by the CIT(A) was the building plan

signed by Sarpanch, Akurli Grampanchayat found from the premises

of Hari Om Associates during the course of survey under section 133A

of the Act and it was observed by the CIT(A) that on enquiry, it

transpires that the Grampanchayat was the local authority who was

empowered to pass the building project in the territorial jurisdiction in

the State of Maharashtra.

9 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010

M/s. Mateshwari Developers

11. The second objection raised by the Assessing Officer as to the

building having commercial area of more than 2000 sq. ft. The CIT(A)

noted that the actual commercial area was 4667 sq. ft. which was

shown in the building plans and also was confirmed by the partner of

the assessee firm in the statement recorded under section 133(1) of

the Act. In view of the same, the CIT(A) vide para 5.1.6 held as under:-

"5.1.6 Thus, the factual and legal position of this case can be summarized as under:-

i. The appellant has not enclosed Form No 10CCB with the return of income filed for AY 05-06. This is the violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 80IA(7) rws 80IB(13) of the IT Act, 1961.

ii. The building complex 'Apeksha' is having 4667 sq ft commercial area which clearly violates the provisions contained in Section 80IB(10) , condition No (d).

iii. The building project commenced without any valid sanction from the 'local authority.' The local authority's sanction order which is mandatory for the building projects claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) has not been filed during the course of assessment proceedings and also during the course of appellate proceedings. The claim of filing sanction order of 'local authority' has been found to be false as the appellant has enclosed a letter of 'NA permission' in the name of sanction order' for building project.

iv. In Form No 10CCB filed with return of income for AY 2006-07, the initial year for claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) has been shown as AY 2006-07.

In view of the above facts and in view of the explicit violation of various provisions of Section 80IB(10), I am not in a position to interfere with the order of the AO on this issue. The disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) is upheld. The grounds of appeal No 1 & 2 are, therefore, dismissed.

12. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in not

allowing deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. 10 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010

M/s. Mateshwari Developers

13. Further, the ground of appeal No.1 raised in the Cross Objection

by the Revenue is in support of the order of CIT(A).

14. The Revenue in assessment year 2006-07 has agitated against

the grant of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act by the CIT(A)

and has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Thane was justified in holding that the deduction u/s 80IB(10), as applicable prior to 1st April, 2005, is admissible in case of a 'housing project' comprising residential housing units and commercial establishments?

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Thane was justified in holding that the residential projects having commercial area more than 2,000 sq.ft.

or 5% of the total built area is eligible for the claim of deduction for entire profits of project u/s 80IB(10)?

3. The appellant prays the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Thane, may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any ground/ grounds, which may be necessary.

15. Further, the additional grounds of appeal have also been raised

by the Revenue, which read as under:-

1. In the present case, the original plan was sanctioned on 28.10.1995 whereas the provisions of sec. 80IB(10) came into existence w.e.f. 01.10.1998 and applicable for the projects in which the plans are approved after 01.10.1998. Thus, in the instant case the provisions of sec. 80IB(10) are not applicable.

Therefore, the Hon. ITAT is requested to consider this fact while deciding the issue on the appeal filed by the assessee.

2. In the present case, the revised plan was claimed to be passed somewhere in the year 2003 (no proof has been submitted from the competent authority). As per the explanation to the provisions of sec. 80IB(10) in the cases where the plan is revised, the date of original sanction of plan is considered for application of provisions of sec. 80IB(10). Therefore, the deduction u/s 80IB(10) is not available to this project. The Hon. ITAT is requested to consider this fact while deciding the issue on the appeal filed by the assessee.

11 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010

M/s. Mateshwari Developers

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Thane was justified in allowing the deduction u/s 80IB(10) even in absence of commencement certificate of the project from the competent authority.

4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Thane was justified in allowing the deduction u/s 80IB(10) even in absence of sanction for approval of the project by the competent authority.

5. The appellant prays the order of the CIT(A)-I, Thane, may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any ground/ grounds, which may be necessary.

16. We proceed to decide the appeal filed by the assessee in

assessment year 2005-06 and the appeal filed by the Revenue in

assessment year 2006-07 against the claim of deduction under section

80IB(10) of the Act after hearing both the Authorized Representatives.

17. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed

out that the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act was denied to

the assessee in assessment year 2005-06 on several issues and the

first issue was non-submission of Audit Report in Form No.10CCB

along with return of income. Our attention was drawn to the copy of

acknowledgement of filing the return of income at pages 6 and 7 of the

Paper Book, in which documents attached with the return of income at

serial No.6, it was mentioned certificate and report (Form No.10CCB).

The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed

out that the said Audit Report in Form No.10CCB is attached at pages

26 and 27 of the Paper Book. The learned Authorized Representative

for the assessee further referred to the assessment order, wherein at

page 2, the Assessing Officer mentioned that the assessee had not

enclosed the Form No.10CCB along with return of income for

assessment year 2005-06. However, at page 5, the Assessing Officer 12 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

notes that the Form No.10CCB was enclosed with the return of

income. Without prejudice to its claim of having furnished Form

No.10CCB along with return of income, the learned Authorized

Representative for the assessee pointed out that the Audit Report can

be filed at any time of proceedings i.e. even before the Tribunal as

appellate proceedings were continuation of the assessment

proceedings. Reliance in this regard, was placed in CIT Vs. Mayur

Foundation (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Guj) and Hastimal Sancheti Research

Foundation Vs. ITO, in ITA No.225/PN/2008, relating to assessment

year 2004-05 order dated 26.03.2010.

18. The second contention raised by the learned Authorized

Representative for the assessee was that the Assessing Officer had

rejected the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act as

the commencement certificate was not filed by the assessee. It was

clarified by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee for

the project at Alibag, Panvel that for the commencement of the said

project, approval of the Grampanchayat and Collector had to be taken.

Our attention was drawn to the letter placed at page 61 of the Paper

Book along with English transaction at page 62 of the Paper Book. It

was further pointed out by the learned Authorized Representative for

the assessee that the records of the assessee and Grampanchayat

were washed away in floods. Our attention was further drawn to the

completion certificate placed at page 66 along with its English

transaction at page 67 of the Paper Book, which was dated

21.07.2006, which was filed before the Assessing Officer. Further, the

assessee made request for admission of additional evidence and it was

pointed out that the assessee had sought the copy of the permission

granted by the Grampanchayat from the owner of land, which is 13 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

placed as additional evidence along with its English transaction and

the same may be admitted. The learned Authorized Representative for

the assessee further pointed out that another aspect for rejection of

the claim under section 80IB(10) of the Act was that the project

comprised of commercial area exceeding 2000 sq. ft. It was pointed

out by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that as

per the commencement certificate, the construction started on

02.05.2003 and the condition of the commercial area being less than

2000 sq. ft., does not apply to the earlier projects. Reliance in this

regard, in Opel Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.219/PN/2009 &

another, relating to assessment year 2005-06, vide order dated

31.05.2011, Manan Corporation Vs. ACIT, in Tax Appeal No.1053 of

2011, vide order dated 03.09.2012 (Guj), and CIT & Another Vs. G.R.

Developers (2013) 353 ITR 1 (Kar).

19. Another objection raised by the Assessing Officer was that in

Form No.10CCB filed for assessment year 2006-07, the date of

commencement of the project was mentioned as 22.11.2002, whereas

the date of approval of the plan was stated to be 16.04.2003. In reply,

the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out

that the assessee had incurred some nominal expenses like leveling of

land, creation of compound wall, etc. amounting to Rs.1,21,120/- and

such expenditure could not be considered as incurred on development

and construction of the project. It was vehemently stated by the

learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that the

construction of the project was commenced only after obtaining the

approval from the local authority and hence, the assessee was entitled

to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. 14 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010

M/s. Mateshwari Developers

20. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue in

reply, pointed out that the CIT(A) in para 5.1.1 at page 17 of the

appellate order has given a finding that the assessee while claiming

the deduction in assessment year 2006-07 had mentioned that it was

the first year of its claim. The second issue raised by the learned

Departmental Representative for the Revenue was that the Collector

had sanctioned the said plan prior to 1998 and only the projects which

were approved after 1998 could claim the deduction under section

80IB(10) of the Act. Further, in respect of the violation of commercial

area, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed

reliance on the ratio laid down by Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in

ITO Vs. Everest Home Construction (India) (P) Ltd. (2012) 26

taxmann.com 246 (Mum.).

21. In rejoinder, the learned Authorized Representative for the

assessee pointed out that the first plan was approved prior to

01.10.1998 which was the layout plan. However, the building plan

was approved in assessment year 2002-03 and the assessee was

entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. It

was further pointed out by the learned Authorized Representative for

the assessee that even if the plan was approved before the due date,

but the construction commenced after 01.10.1998, so there was no

violation of the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act.

22. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record.

During the year under consideration, the assessee had carried on the

construction activity and had claimed deduction under section

80IB(10) of the Act in respect of project Apeksha Complex, which was

a residential cum commercial project. Survey under section 133A of 15 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

the Act was conducted upon the assessee during the course of

assessment proceedings on 30.08.2007 and statement of one of the

partners of the assessee firm was recorded. The Assessing Officer

after analyzing the issue, had denied the deduction under section

80IB(10) of the Act, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) relating to

assessment year 2005-06, against which the assessee is in appeal.

Similar claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act in

assessment year 2006-07 was denied by the Assessing Officer.

However, the same was allowed by the CIT(A), against which, the

Revenue is in appeal.

23. The first objection raised by the Assessing Officer in denying the

claim under section 80IB(10) of the Act in assessment year 2005-06

was that the assessee had not filed the Form No.10CCB along with

return of income. For claiming the deduction under section 80IB(10)

of the Act, the requirement is to furnish the Audit Report in Form

No.10CCB along with return of income. In case, where the said Audit

Report is not furnished along with return of income, then the

deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act from the profits and gains

of undertaking are not admissible, in view of provisions of section

80IA(7) r.w.s. 80IB(11) of the Act. The plea of the assessee however,

before us is that, it had duly submitted the Form No.10CCB at the

time of filing the return of income for assessment year 2005-06. The

assessee has placed on record the copy of acknowledgement of filing

the return of income for assessment year 2005-06 at pages 6 and 7 of

the Paper Book, wherein there is a mention of certificate and audit

report and with ink, there is mention of 10CCB. The Assessing Officer

while passing the assessment order at page 2 comments that the

assessee has not furnished the Audit Report along with return of 16 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

income, however, at page 5, the Assessing Officer accepts the fact that

the assessee has furnished the Audit Report in Form No.10CCB along

with return of income. The Assessing Officer had confronted the

assessee with the fact pertaining to the approval from the statutory

authority required as per the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act

and also the facts stated by the assessee in his return of income and

in Form No.10CCB enclosed with the return, during the course of

recording the statement of the partner Shri Babubhai Patel under

section 131 of the Act while completing the assessment in the case of

assessee. Thus, there are several conflicting views of the Assessing

Officer vis-à-vis the filing of the Audit Report in Form No.10CCB.

However, it is an admitted fact that the assessee had furnished the

said Audit Report in Form No.10CCB during the course of appellate

proceedings and even before us, and the same is placed at pages 26

and 27 of the Paper Book. The said Audit Report can be filed during

appellate proceedings as the same are continuation of assessment

proceedings. The said view has been laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat

CIT Vs. Mayur Foundation (supra). Applying the said principle laid

down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High court, we reverse the findings of

authorities below, in this regard. The assessee had furnished the

Audit Report before the authorities below and also before us and in

view thereof, we hold that the assessee had complied with the

provisions of the Act in furnishing the Audit Report, which in turn

enables the assessee to claim the deduction under section 80IB(10) of

the Act.

24. The second issue raised in the present appeal is non-furnishing

of the Commencement Certificate from the local authority. The project

of the assessee is situated in village Akurli, Tal. Panvel and the 17 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

requirement of provisions of the Act are that the Commencement

Certificate should be issued by the local authority. In the case of

assessee, admittedly, the local authority was the Grampanchayat,

though, a plea was raised by the assessee before the authorities below

that the local authority, who sanctions the building project was the

Collector, Alibag. The assessee had furnished the approval letter of

Collector, Alibag, during the course of assessment proceedings.

However, the Commencement Certificate issued by the

Grampanchayat was not furnished by the assessee as the same

reportedly, was washed away in floods both from the office of the

assessee and from the office of the Collector. However, the assessee

had furnished the Completion Certificate issued by Grampanchayat,

which is placed at page 63 of the Paper Book along with its English

translation at page 64. The letter dated 22.05.2009 reads as under:-

"To, Respected Sarpanch Saheb, Grampanchayat Aakurli, Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad.

Respected Sir,

At village Aakurli, at Gat No. 98, Hissa No. 1 & 2, the application for approval for the construction of building is submitted to the Office of Collector, Raigad Alibag. The said plan is approved by The Collector, Raigad Alibag as on dated 02/05/2003 and has given the permission to construct the building. The said plan is also approved by Grampanchayat, Akurli & has given the permission to construct the building at the said premises. But all the related records were washed out in flood occurred as on dated 26/07/2005.

As the approval from the Grampanchayat, Akurli had been taken for the construction of building, the Grampanchayat, Akurli had also issued the completion certificate as on dated 21/07/2006. As per the completion certificate the Grampanchayat has levied the property tax (Ghar Patti) to all Flat owners as per the measure area of the flats & also collects the said tax from the flat owners. So we request you to issue the letter that we (M/s Mateshwari Developers) had taken the approval of building plan from the Grampanchayat, Akurli.

Recd. by, 18 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

Your's truly, Signature of Surpanch Grampanchayat Aakurli M/s.Mateshwari Developers Tal Panvel Partner's Signature"

25. The perusal of the said communication clearly reflects that the

assessee had furnished the application for approval of the

construction of building to the office of the Collector, Raigad, Alibag,

which was approved on 02.05.2003. The letter further mentions that

the said plan was also approved by the Grampanchayat, Akurli, who

had given the permission to construct the building at the said

premises. The said letter further mentions that the related records

were washed away in floods occurred on 26.07.2005. It further stated

that the Grampanchayat had issued the Completion Certificate dated

21.07.2006 and had also levied the property tax to all the flat owners.

The letter dated 22.05.2009 was issued by the Grampanchayat in

reply to the letter dated 18.05.2009 issued by the assessee to the

Grampanchayat, the copies of which are placed at pages 61 and 62 of

the Paper Book. The Completion Certificate is placed at pages 66 and

67 of the Paper Book which dated 21.07.2006 in which it is certified

that the assessee had taken construction permission from the

Collector, Raigad, Alibag and the construction of building has been

completed.

26. The assessee during the course of hearing has furnished an

application for admission of additional evidence being the copy of

Grampanchayat permission issued vide letter dated 05.02.2003. The

claim of the assessee before the authorities below and even before us

was that he had lost the said certificate in floods and even the

Grampanchayat had lost the certificate in the floods. However, copy of

the Grampanchayat certificate was obtained from the owner of the plot 19 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

of land and the said photo copy of certificate is placed at page 4 of the

Paper Book along with its English translation at page 5 of the Paper

Book. Vide meeting held on 05.02.2003, the Grampanchayat at Akurli

had given permission to the assessee for the construction of complex,

residential and commercial purposes. In view of the said certificate

being a State record, the same is admitted as additional evidence,

where the Grampanchayat had given the permission for construction

of the building at the site on 05.02.2003 and the copy of the Certificate

being filed by the assessee as an additional evidence, we find no merit

in the orders of authorities below in denying the claim of deduction

under section 80IB(10) of the Act for the reason that the assessee had

failed to furnish the Commencement Certificate of the construction of

the project. In any case, the assessee had furnished the Completion

Certificate and had also furnished a communication, under which it

was stated by the Sarpanch, Grampanchayat, Akurli that the building

plans were approved by the Grampanchayat, Akurli, who in turn had

given the permission for construction of the building at the said site.

Further, the plans were also approved by the Collector, Raigad, Alibag

on 02.05.2003 and the Completion Certificate was issued on

21.07.2006. In the entirety of the above said documents and

evidences furnished by the assessee, the findings of CIT(A) are

reversed. The assessee having obtained the Commencement

Certificate from the competent authority i.e. the Grampanchayat and

in addition having received the Commencement Certificate from the

Collector, Raigad, Alibag, we find no merit in the orders of the

authorities below in denying the claim of deduction under section

80IB(10) of the Act on this account.

20 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010

M/s. Mateshwari Developers

27. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue had

raised an issue that the assessee was not entitled to the claim of

deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act for the instant year since

the assessee in the Audit Report filed for assessment year 2006-07

had mentioned that, it was the first year of claim of deduction under

section 80IB(10) of the Act. The Audit Report in Form No.10CCB for

the instant year is placed at pages 56 and 57 of the Paper Book. The

assessee has claimed that the initial assessment year from when the

deduction was being claimed was 31.03.2005 (2005-06), similar

reporting has been made in the Audit Report in Form No.10CCB

relating to assessment year 2006-07. The perusal of return of income

filed for assessment year 2005-06 on 31.10.2005 clearly reflects that

the assessee had shown the income from business at Rs.39,32,000/-

and against which, it had claimed deduction under Chapter VI(A) at

Rs.39,32,000/- and had declared the income at Nil. The Assessing

Officer at page 2 of the assessment order relating to the instant

assessment year has given a finding that during the year, the assessee

had shown the sale of flats at Rs.2.47 crores and after debiting various

expenses, had shown net profit of Rs.39,20,000/-. Further, it has

been noted by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had claimed

deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act of Rs.39,32,000/- and

returned Nil income. In the totality of the above facts and

circumstances, where the assessee had made the declaration in the

return of income, we find no merit in the plea of the learned

Departmental Representative for the Revenue in this regard and the

same is dismissed.

28. Another issue on which the deduction under section 80IB(10) of

the Act was refused to the assessee was that the project of the 21 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

assessee comprised of commercial area of about 4000 sq. ft. The case

of the assessee before us was that the Commencement Certificate for

construction of the said project was issued on 02.05.2003 and the

condition of the requisite of commercial usage does not apply to the

earlier projects, which were sanctioned by the authorities. The present

provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act were substituted by the

Finance (No.2) Act of 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2005, under which as per

clause (d) to section 80IB(10) of the Act, limit of commercial usage in a

housing project is provided. However, the pre-amended provisions of

section 80IB(10) of the Act which were amended by the Finance Act,

2000 w.e.f. 01.04.2001 and Finance Act, 2003 with retrospective effect

from 01.04.2002 read as under:-

"(10) The amount of profits in case of an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before the 31st day of March, 2005 by a local authority, shall be hundred per cent of the profits derived in any previous year relevant to any assessment year from such housing project if, -

(a) such undertaking has commenced or commences development and construction of the housing project on or after the 1st day of October, 1998;

(b) the project is on the size of a plot of land which has a minimum area of one acre; and

(c) the residential unit has a maximum built-up area of one thousand square feet where such residential unit is situated within the cities of Delhi or Mumbai or within twenty-five kilometers from the municipal limits of these cities and one thousand and five hundred square feet at any other place."

29. Under the said provisions, admittedly, there was no clause

relating to the built up area of shops and commercial establishments.

The project of the assessee before us was approved on 05.02.2003 and

admittedly, the pre-amended provisions of the Act were applicable.

30. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Opel Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

ACIT in ITA No.219/PN/2009 & another, relating to assessment year 22 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

2005-06, vide order dated 31.05.2011, while deciding the issue of

application of amended provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act w.e.f.

01.04.2005 to the projects already approved and started in earlier

years, had considered the various decisions on the issue including the

ratio laid down by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Hiranandani

Akruti Vs. DCIT, ITA No.5416/Mum/2009, relating to assessment year

2006-07, vide order dated 30.03.2010, and held as under:-

"19. We, thus, find that the issues raised in the present appeals are fully covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hiranandani Akruti J.V v/s. DCIT (Supra). Respectfully followig the said decision in the case of Hiranandani Akruti J.V. (Supra), we decide the issues in favour of the assessees that a housing project will also consist of commercial area to a permissible limit, as settled by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bramha Assocates (Supra) (now upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court) as applicable upto A.Y. 2004-05. And secondly, the law as it existed in the Assessment Year when the assessee submitted its proposal of the project and permission for the same was accorded to and when the assessee commenced the project is to be applied. In the present case, undisputedly the assessees had started the project in the year 2001 when sub-clause (d) to Section 80IB(10) was not in existence, hence it cannot be applied on such projects as held by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hirnandani Akruti J.V. (Supra).

In this regard, we also find strength from this plea of the Ld. A.R. which was also raised before in the case of Hiranandani Akruti J.V. that if the assessee had followed WIP (Work-in-progress) method, the income from the project would have been taxable in the earlier years as the project was completed earlier to the amendment and in that case, as per the old provision the assessee would have been eligible for the deduction. But, just because the assessee has followed the Project Completion method, in these cases, the deduction is being denied because it falls in A.Y. 2005-06. In our view the newly inserted clause (d) to Section 80IB(10) will not apply on the projects approved upto 31.3.05 since in those projects assessees are required to construct what has been approved. The only fissible compliance is required to be met as per the harmonious interpretation of Section 80IB(10) as amended is to complete such projects (approved before 1.4.2004) on or before 31.3.2008. In the cases before us the projects have been completed well before this date. Putting of such condition of time limit is well understood.

Since the legislature intended the completion of projects within a time frame to avoid inconvenience to the beneficiaries i.e. the buyers. In this regard the Legislature has categorised the time limit for the projects approved on different period before 31.3.2007 but requirement remained the same that projects would be approved by the local authority. Compliance of the 23 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

requirement provided in clause (d) to the Section is possible only in those projects which have been started on or after 1.4.2005 as by then those assessees were all aware about the provisions laid down in clause (d).

20. By applying the principle of harmonious construction to interpret the provisions under Sub-section (10) to Section 80IB as amended w.e.f. 1.4.2005 we come to the conclusion that the Legislature always intended that the project must be approved by the local authority, thus in those approved projects where construction has been started much earlier than 1.4.2005, the assessees are required to complete the plan as it has been approved. As putting such assessees to complete the plan meeting out condition under clause (d) of the subsection would lead into absurdity and impossibility for the assessee and in contradiction to the provisions u/s. 80 IB(10) as prevailed at the time of approval and commencement of the construction of the project well before 1.4.2005. Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hiranandani Akruti J.V (supra) has discussed all these relevant aspects raised by the Department. In the case of Hiranandani Akruti J.V V/s. DCIT, it has been held that the law as existed when the assessee submitted its proposal and permission for carrying out the development was accorded and when the assessee commenced development is to be applied. In the present cases, as per page nos.17 and 20 of the paper book in the case of Opel Shelter the project was commenced on 23.2.2001 and even completed on 14.5.2004, similarly as per the contents of page No.2 of the assessment order and page no. 41 of the paper book in the case of D.S. Kulkarni and Associates, the project was commenced on 12.4.2001 and completed in the month of November 2003. Thus, the assessees were supposed to complete the projects as per the law as existed in the A.Y. 2001-02 in the case of Opel Shelters and in the A.Y. 2002-03 in the case of D.S. Kulkarni and Associates. We thus following the decision in the case of Hiranandani Akruti JV V/s. DCIT (Supra) hold that amended provisions under Section 80 IB(10) w.e.f. 1.4.2005 are not applicable in the present case, hence assessees are eligible for the claimed deduction u/s. 80 IB (10) of the Act. We accordingly direct the A.O to allow the claimed deduction to the assessees."

31. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Manan Corporation Vs.

ACIT, in Tax Appeal No.1053 of 2011, vide order dated 30.09.2012 had

held that the amendment brought in to section 80IB(10) of the Act by

the Finance Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2005 was a substantive

amendment and not a clarificatory amendment and the amendment of

this nature could not have retrospective effect.

32. In view of the above said proposition laid down, we hold that the

pre-amended provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act are to be applied 24 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

to the project undertaken by the assessee, where the approval for the

commencement of construction was given before 01.04.2005. As per

the additional evidence furnished by the assessee which has been

admitted by us, the Commencement Certificate was issued by the

Grampanchayat on 05.02.2003 i.e. approved before 01.04.2004 and

construction had to be completed on or before 31.03.2008. The

assessee has filed the Completion Certificate dated 21.07.2006 at

pages 66 and 67 of the Paper Book under which, it has been certified

that the said project has been completed as on the date of certificate

i.e. within stipulated date provided under the Act. The project having

been approved by the competent authority and having been completed

by the assessee in line with the approval given by the competent

authority, merely because the commercial area of the said project was

about 4000 sq. ft., does not dis-entitles the assessee from the claim of

deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct

the Assessing Officer to allow the said deduction to the assessee.

33. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue had

relied on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in ITO Vs.

Everest Home Construction (India) (P) Ltd. (2012) 26 taxmann.com

246 (Mum.) for the proposition that the limit on the commercial built

up area prescribed in section 80IB(10) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2005

would also be applicable to the instant project even if such project has

been approved by the local authority prior to 01.04.2005. The said

decision relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative for

the Revenue is no longer good law having regard to the judgment of

Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. M/s. Happy Home

Enterprises in Income Tax Appeal No.201 of 2012, dated 19.09.2014.

As per the Hon'ble High Court, clause (d) of section 80IB(10) of the Act 25 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

as amended by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2005 shall

not be applicable to the housing projects approved before 31.03.2005. Therefore, the stand of the learned Departmental Representative for

the Revenue based on the order of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal

in ITO Vs. Everest Home Construction (India) (P) Ltd. (supra) is not

justified.

34. Another aspect raised by the learned Departmental

Representative for the Revenue was that the Collector had sanctioned

the plan prior to 1998 and only projects approved after 1998 could

claim the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. As pointed out

by us in the paras hereinabove, the pre-amended provisions of section

80IB(10) of the Act are attracted in the case under which, as per

clause (a) of section 80IB(10), it was provided that the deduction under

section 80IB(10) of the Act would be available to such undertaking

which had commenced or commences, developed and construction of

the housing project on or after 01.10.1998. The assessee has placed

on record the Commencement Certificate under which, permission was

given to construct the building for residential and commercial purpose

by the Grampanchayat at Akurli vide its meeting held on 05.02.2003.

Since the permission for construction has been given after 01.04.1998,

the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act (pre-amended) are clearly

attracted and since the assessee has fulfilled the conditions laid down

in clause (a) of section 80IB(10) (pre-amended), and had commenced

the construction of housing project after first day of October, 1998, the

assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of

the Act. Accordingly, we find no merit in the submissions made by the

learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue in this regard

and the same is dismissed. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow 26 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act to the assessee for the

captioned assessment year.

35. Another issue raised in the present appeal is that in Form

No.10CCB, the date of commencement of the project has been

mentioned as 22.11.2002 whereas the date of approval was stated to

be 16.04.2003. The case of the Assessing Officer was that the

assessee had commenced the construction prior to the approval and

hence, the assessee was not eligible for the claim of deduction under

section 80IB(10) of the Act. Another plea raised in this regard was

that in the audit report filed in Form No.10CCB relating to assessment

year 2006-07, the year of construction was mentioned to be first year.

We find no merit in the plea of the Revenue authorities in this regard,

where nominal expenses of Rs.1,21,120/- were incurred by the

assessee prior to the development and construction of the project. We

find merit in the claim of the assessee that it had commenced

construction only after obtaining approval from the local authority,

hence, the assessee is eligible to the claim of deduction under section

80IB(10) of the Act. Further, merely because in the audit report

relating to assessment year 2006-07, the year of project was

mentioned as first year, does not change the factum that the assessee

had already claimed the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act.

The assessee had in Form No.10CCB filed for assessment year 2005-

06 has also mentioned that the year of start of project was first year.

In view thereof, there is no merit in denial of deduction under section

80IB(10) of the Act. The grounds of appeal No.1 to 4 raised by the

assessee in assessment year 2005-06 are thus, allowed. The ground

of appeal No.1 raised in Cross Objections by the Revenue is thus,

dismissed.

27 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010

M/s. Mateshwari Developers

36. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in granting

the relief under section 80IB(10) of the Act in assessment year 2006-

07. The facts and issue arising in ITA No.142/PN/2010 are identical

to the facts and issue in ITA No.214/PN/2009 and our decision in ITA

No.214/PN/2009 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal filed by

the Revenue in ITA No.142/PN/2010. The grounds of appeal raised by

the Revenue are thus, dismissed.

37. The additional grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue on plans

approved prior to 01.10.1998 are also dismissed.

38. The issue in grounds of appeal No.5 & 6 raised by the assessee

in ITA No.214/PN/2009 are against the disallowance under section

40(a)(ia) of the Act.

39. The assessee has also filed an additional ground vis-à-vis

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and pointed out that

where the profits of the undertaking have increased on account of the

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, the said profits being

eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act, then any

increase in the profits should also be made eligible for the deduction

under section 80IB(10) of the Act. The learned Authorized

Representative for the assessee clearly pointed out that the ends of

justice would be met in case the additional ground of appeal is allowed

in the hands of the assessee as against the grounds of appeal raised.

40. We find merit in the plea of the assessee that where a person is

eligible to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act,

then such deduction is allowable on the profits of the business which

have been computed in the hands of the assessee. In the facts of the

present case, the Assessing Officer while computing the profits of the 28 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

business, had made certain additions on account of disallowance

under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source.

The said addition has been added to the profits declared by the

assessee and consequently, the profits of the business have increased.

The said increased profits are the eligible profits of the business.

Since the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction under section

80IB(10) of the Act as held by us in the paras hereinabove on its

profits from the business, such deduction under section 80IB(10) of

the Act is also allowable on the enhanced profits of the business which

are the profits eligible for the claim of deduction under section

80IB(10) of the Act. Accordingly, we allow the additional ground of

appeal raised by the assessee in this regard. The grounds of appeal

No.5 and 6 are thus, dismissed and additional grounds of appeal are

allowed.

41. The issue in ground of appeal No.7 is with regard to

enhancement in the hands of the assessee on account of additional

income offered pursuant to the survey proceedings. The assessee had

offered an expenditure of Rs.3,73,000/- as an additional income being

unaccounted expenditure and the said additional income was added in

the hands of the assessee. The learned Authorized Representative for

the assessee fairly admitted that the assessee is not eligible for claim

of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act on such additional

income. Hence, the ground of appeal No.7 raised by the assessee is

dismissed.

42. The issue in ground of appeal No.8 raised by the assessee is

against the addition made on account of extra work done, wherein the

Assessing Officer had estimated the profits @ 8% of third party

receipts. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee 29 ITA No.214/PN/2009 CO No.40/PN/2011 ITA No.142/PN/2010 M/s. Mateshwari Developers

pointed out that the said receipts on account of extra work were part

of its project and were not to be taxed separately. Even if the said

income was taxed in the hands of the assessee, then the assessee is

entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act on

such enhanced profits. We direct the Assessing Officer to allow the

deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act on such enhancement of

profits. The ground of appeal No.8 is thus, allowed as indicated.

43. The Revenue raised grounds of appeal in Cross Objections,

which are in support of the order of the CIT(A). In view of our decision

in respect of various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee except

ground of appeal No.7, we find no merit in the Cross Objections raised

by the Revenue in this regard, except ground of appeal No.4 raised in

the Cross Objections. Accordingly, the Cross Objections raised by the

Revenue are partly allowed.

44. In the result, appeal of the assessee and Cross Objections of the

Revenue are partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on this 30th day of January, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated: 30 th January, 2015. GCVSR Copy of the order is forwarded to: - 1) The Assessee; 2) The Department; 3) The CIT(A)-I, Thane; 4) The CIT-I, Thane; 5) The DR "A" Bench, I.T.A.T., Pune; 6) Guard File. By Order //True Copy//

Assistant Registrar I.T.A.T., Pune