Itta/316/2016 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S. B.r Constructions

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIANAND HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS I.T.T.A.No.316 of 2016 Judgment: The Revenue has come up with the above appeal under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, raising the following questions of law: (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in reversing thefindings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) thatthe respondent assessee has resorted to deliberatefalsification without giving any cogent findings? (2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the projectwas completed by 31.03.2011, without conducting properenquiries, despite the fact that the completion certificate filedby the respondent assessee was full of discrepancies andalso the same is not a reliable document? and (3) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that therespondent assessee is eligible for deduction under Section801B(10) of the Income Tax Act, on the ground of theAssessing Officer accepting the completion certificate in thesubsequent year i.e., Assessment Year 2010-11, despite thefindings of the higher authority in the form of Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) for the relevant Assessment Year i.e.,2009-10 and also the proceedings of both years areindependent for each year? 2. But, a careful look at the order of the CIT (Appeals) wouldshow that he had rejected, on a perverse appreciation of the Certificateissued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) thatthe building was completed in all respects on 31-3-2011. The Certificate issued by the GHMC clearly states that thedwelling units were completed in all respects and occupied on 31-3-2011 itself. Still, the CIT (Appeals) chose to come to the conclusionthat the building was not completed before 30-12-2011. 3. This is why the Tribunal was compelled to interfere with thesaid order and we find no question of law, much less substantialquestion of law, arising in the appeal. Hence, the appeal isdismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appealshall stand closed. No costs. ___________________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. 03[rd] August, 2016. Ak ___________________________ ANIS, J. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIANANDHON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS I.T.T.A.No.316 of 2016 03[rd] August, 2016.(Ak)