Itxa/1755/2017 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 Thane v. Sadhana Builders Pvt. Ltd

spb/ 17itxa1755-17.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1755 OF 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2,Thane (W) 400 604 ... Appellant. V/s. M/s. Sadhana Builders Pvt. Ltd., ...Respondent. --- Mr. Tejveer Singh, Advocate for the Appellant. --- CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN AND MILIND N. JADHAV,JJ. DATE : JANUARY 22, 2020. PC : 1counsel Revenue for the Appellant. Heard Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned standing 2This Appeal has been preferred under section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) by the Revenueagainst the order dated 15.12.2016 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench “A”,Mumbai (Tribunal) in Income Tax Appeal No. 2099/Mum/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. 3Appeal has been preferred, projecting thefollowing as substantial question of law : 1/4 Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law, the ITAT has erred inholding that the project was complete on orbefore 31.03.2009 when occupation certificatewas accorded only in respect of 9206.30 Sq.Mtr.Against sanction of 11960.15 sq.Mtr. ? 4Mr. Singh, learned standing counsel fairlysubmits that this issue has been gone into by this courtin case of the same assessee for the assessment year2009-2010 in Income Tax Appeal No. 655 of 2017 filedby the Revenue, answering the same in favour of theassessee and against the Revenue vide the order dated06.06.2019. 5Relevant portion of the order dated06.06.2019 passed in the said Income Tax Appeal No.655 of 2017 is extracted hereunder : “3.The CIT (Appeals) having granted the relief tothe assessee, the revenue carried the matter inappeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by theimpugned judgment dismissed the revenue’sappeal upon which the present appeal have beenfiled. The record of the case would show that CIT 2/4 17itxa1755-17.odt (Appeals) and Tribunal concurrently came to theconclusion that the assessee had proposed thehousing project comparison of buildings A,B,C,D,Eand F. Out of a total area of 11960.15 sq. metersto be constructed as per the building constructionpermission, the assessee had completedconstruction of 11,592.43sq.meters. Necessarycompletion certificates from the local authoritywere also issued from time to time and last suchcertificate was issued on 1st December,2008.Thus, the construction was completed and dulycertified by the local authority before 31st March,2009. 4.The record further shows that the buildings Eand F were not to be constructed and the land wasto be handed over to the landlord on account offurther developments and dispute. This was theonly remaining portion of the construction out ofthe originally sanctioned plan. The assessee hadclaimed deduction in respect of the income arisingout of sale of construction only for whichcompletion certificates were issued. That being theposition, we do not find any error in view of theTribunal granting deduction under Section 80IB(10)of the Act. No question of law arises. Income TaxAppeal is dismissed.” 3/4 spb/ 6Following the same, we are also of the viewthat there is no error or infirmity in the conclusionreached by the Tribunal in confirming the order passedby the first Appellate Authority. No substantialquestion of law arises out of the order passed by theTribunal. 7Consequently, this Income Tax Appeal isdismissed. No cost. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) ….. 4/4