Ita/332/2019 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gurgaon v. M/S Orbit Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd

ITA-332-2019 (O&M) andITA-312-2019 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH 104Date of Decision : 21.1.2020 ITA-332-2019 (O&M) The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon eee APpellant 2!*&.& M/s. Orbit Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. wee RESpondent ITA-312-2019 (O&M) The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon eee APpellant 2!*&.& M/s. Orbit Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. wee RESpondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI* HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN::: Present ;Mr. T.K.Joshi, Senior Standing counsel withMr. Vikram Bali, Junior Standing counselfor the appellant. ::: AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)inVide this common order we shall dispose of above said two appeals since common question of law is involved therein. 2 Hor the sake of convenience facts have been taken from TTA-332-2019| 3This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act) against the order ITA-332-2019 (O&M) andITA-312-2019 (O&M) dated 25.9.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal DelhiBench “E” New Delhi whereby the disallowance which was claimed bythe assessee under Section 80ID has been confirmed. The appeals pertainto the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-2010, claiming followingsubstantial question of law :- 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in deleting and addition ofRs. 5,51,66,956/- made by the AO on account ofdisallowance of deduction claimed u/s SOLID of the IT Act196]? 4Brief facts are that the assessee had constructed a hotel andengaged in running of the hotel and claimed the benefit ofRs.5,51,66,956/- deduction under Section 80ID of the Act. TheAssessing Officer came to the conclusion that since in the balance sheetthe hotel was shown as ‘under construction’ and since he was of theOpinion that completion certificate issued by Executive EngineeringMunicipal Corporation, Gurgaon was ‘not genuine’, he disallowed theclaim. | 5 Aggrieved against the order of Assessing Officer the assesseemoved to Commissioner of Income Tax (A) and submitted various piecesof evidence to show that in fact despite the assertion that the hotel wasunder construction yet it was fully operational. These evidence includedinter alia certification from the Ministry of Tourism, list of customers,payment received from the customer through banking channels etc. Onthe scrutiny of these pieces of evidence the CIT (A) came to theconclusion that in fact the assessee had successfully proved that the hotel ITA-332-2019 (O&M) andITA-312-2019 (O&M) was functional and therefore entitled to deduction under Section SOID ofthe Act. The ‘Tribunal has discussed the entire evidence and haconfirmed the finding of the Commissioner. | 6 Accordingly, no _ substantial question of law_ arise Consequently, the appeals stand dismissed. TiSince the main cases have been dismissed, the pendingapplication, if any, also stands disposed of. 21.1.2020anuradha JUDGE (AJAY TEWARIT)(AVNEESH JHINGAN)JUDGE *Whether speaking/reasoned*Whether reportable Yes/NoYes/No