Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Sahajanand Corporation, Ahmedabad vs Department Of Income Tax
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद Ûयायपीठ ''D", अहमदाबाद ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, "D" BENCH सव[ौी ौी जी.
जी.सी.
सी.गुƯा, ा माननीय उपाÚय¢, उपाÚय¢, एवं ए.मोहन अलंकामोनी, ामोनी, लेखा सदःय के सम¢ ।
BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No.1747 and 1748 /Ahd/2012 [Asstt. Year : 2007-2008 and 2008-2009] ITO, Ward-9(1) बनाम/Vs. M/s.Sahajanand Corporation Ahmedabad. Parimal Co-op. hosg. Society Ltd.
Nr. Bombay Conductor Vatva-GIDC Road Ghodasar, Ahmedabad.
PAN : AAXFS 1824 M
(अपीलाथȸ / Appellant) (ू×यथȸ / Respondent)
राजःव कȧ ओर से/ : Shri T. Sankar
Revenue by
िनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/ : Shri S.V.Agrawal
Assessee by
सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/ : 3rd October, 2012
Date of Hearing
घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/ : 02-11-2012
Date of Pronouncement
आदे श / O R D E R
PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: These two appeals by the Revenue for the assessment years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 are directed against the order of the CIT(A). Since identical issue is involved in both these appeals preferred by the Revenue, these are being disposed of with this consolidated order.
2. The identical grounds of the appeals of the Revenue in both these appeals are as under:
ITA No.1747 and 1748 /Ahd/2012 "1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to allow the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs.10,88,610/-
for A.Y.2007-2008 and Rs.12,08,890/- for Rs.2008-2009 u/s.80IB(10) of the IT Act.
2. The Ld. CIT(A), Ahmedabad has erred in holding that the Assessee fulfills the conditions laid down for claiming deduction u/s.801B(10) even when the land was in the name of Parimal (Ghodasar) Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd., which is a seperate legal entity in the eye of law and the Assessee entered into the project by a development agreement with the Society. The entire responsibility to execute the housing project and abide by the terms and conditions of its approval right from the inception of the project till its completion rests with the Society. The local Authority had granted permission for development to the Society. Assessee was just a contractor of the land owners constructing residential units and not a developer."
3. The learned DR submitted that the CIT(A) has allowed the deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act on the basis of the appellate order passed for the earlier assessment year 2006-2007. He submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee fulfilled the conditions laid down for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act in the case of the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee with the decision of the CIT(A) in earlier assessment year 2006-2007 and the facts of the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment years being identical with the facts of the case for the earlier assessment year 2006- 2007, the issue may be decided in favour of the assessee.
4. We have considered rival submissions and have perused the orders of the AO and CIT(A). We find that the facts of the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 are identical with the facts of the case of the assessee in the earlier assessment year 2006-2007. We find that the CIT(A) in the appeal for the earlier -2- ITA No.1747 and 1748 /Ahd/2012 assessment year 2006-2007 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and has held that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions laid down for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act and has allowed the claim of the assessee accordingly. However, in reply to specific question from the Bench regarding whether any departmental appeal was preferred by the Revenue in the earlier assessment year 2006- 2007 against the order of the CIT(A) allowing claim of the assessee under Section 80IB(10) of the Act, both the parties before us were unable to assist the court in this regard and could not give satisfactory reply. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that it shall be in the interest of justice to restore the issue in the grounds of appeal of the Revenue to the file of the AO with direction to decide the issue afresh in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-2007, in case the Revenue has preferred an appeal to the Tribunal for A.Y.2006-2007 and also in the light of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Radhe Developers, 341 ITR 403, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We direct accordingly.
5. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ए.मोहन अलंकामोनी /A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) जी.
जी.सी.
(जी सी.गुƯा/G.C.
ा GUPTA)
लेखा सदःय /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपाÚय¢ /VICE-PRESIDENT
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1) : Appellant
2) : Respondent
-3-