Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
B.Nanji Enterprise Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs Acit.,(Osd)Range-1,, Ahmedabad on 31 March, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD "A" BENCH AHMEDABAD
BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 1787/Ahd/2011
(Assessment Year: 2005-06)
B. Nanji Enterprises Ltd.
5, Moorti Bungalows, Ashoknagar
Behind ISRO, Satellite, Ahmedabad Appellant
Vs.
Asst. CIT (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad
(Present jurisdiction with ACIT,
Central Circle - 1(4), Ahmedabad ) Respondent
&
IT(SS)A Nos. 122 to 124 & 127/Ahd/2013
WITH
C.O. Nos.118 to 120 & 123/Ahd/2013
(Assessment Years: 2004-05 to 2006-07 & 2009-10)
ACIT, Central Circle - 1(4),
Room No.337, 3rd Floor, Aaykar
Bhavan, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Appellant
Vs.
B. Nanji Enterprises Ltd.
Moorti Bunglow, 5, Ashoknagar
Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., Nr. ISRO,
B/h. Sundarvan, Ahmedabad Respondent
PAN: AAACB7702P
आवेदक क ओर से/By Assessee : Shri Sakar Sharma, A.R.
ITA No.1787/Ahd/11 & IT(SS)A Nos. 122 to 124 & 127/Ahd/13
with C.O. Nos. 118 to 120 & 123/Ahd/13 A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2006-07
(B. Nanji Enterprises Ltd.) -2-
राज व क ओर से/By Revenue : Shri R. I. Patel, CIT. D.R. with
Shri Deepak Sutaria, Sr. D.R.
सन
ु वाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 28.03.2017
घोषणा क तार ख/Date of
Pronouncement : 31.03.2017
ORDER
PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This batch involves nine cases. First of all comes assessee's appeal ITA No.1787/Ahd/2011 for assessment year 2005-06 against the CIT(A)-VI, Ahmedabad's order dated 27.04.2011, in case no. CIT(A)- VI/ACIT(OSD)R.1/77/07-08, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short 'the Act'. Thereafter come Revenue's four appeals IT(SS)A Nos. 122 to 124 & 127/Ahd/2013 and assessee's cross objections thereto CO Nos. 118 to 120 & 123/Ahd/2013 for assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 & 2009-10; respectively arising against the CIT(A)-I, Ahmedabad's order; all dated 12.12.2012 in case nos. CIT(A)- I/CC.1(4)/313/2011-12, CIT(A)-I/CC.1(4)/314/2011-12, CIT(A)- I/CC.1(4)/315/2011-12 & CIT(A)-I/CC.1(4)/318/2011-12; respectively in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act.
2. We advert to relevant pleadings first. The assessee's appeal ITA No.1787/Ahd/2011 for assessment year 2005-06. It raises three substantive grounds in challenging the CIT(A)'s order affirming Assessing Officer's findings disallowing/adding Bombay Stock Exchange payment of Rs.60,000/- as penalty, assets written off amounting to Rs.59,35,105/- treated as capital loss and rejection of Section 80IB(10) deduction claim of Rs.2,79,31,077/-. Learned counsel takes us to CIT(A)'s order page 3 para 2.3 holding that in the event the assessee succeeds on the said deduction issue, ITA No.1787/Ahd/11 & IT(SS)A Nos. 122 to 124 & 127/Ahd/13 with C.O. Nos. 118 to 120 & 123/Ahd/13 A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2006-07 (B. Nanji Enterprises Ltd.) -3- the impugned disallowance pertaining to Bombay Stock Exchange penalty issue would only increase business income otherwise is eligible for deduction. He seeks to apply the same analogy qua the abovestated second ground as well. We however find no merit in this contention since the CIT(A)'s order in para 3.3 page 5 confirms the impugned disallowance by recording assessee's concession thereby treating the same as an instance of capital loss not eligible for the abovestated deduction. The sole substantive issue thus survives for our apt adjudication is that of assessee's claim of Section 80IB(10) deduction.
3. We now come to Revenue's four appeals IT(SS)A Nos. 122 to 124 & 127/Ahd/2013 filed as arising from the search in question conducted in assessee's case on 04.03.2010. The Revenue's sole substantive ground identical in all four appeals seeks to restore Section 80IB(10) deduction disallowance of Rs.3,82,50,213/-, Rs.2,81,94,396/-, Rs.1,04,82,953/- and Rs.71,85,020/-; respectively as made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee had not completed the residential projects in question before the stipulated dates envisaged in the amended statutory provision w.e.f. 01.04.2005 as prescribed in Section 80IB(10) (a)(ii) r.w. Explanation (ii). The assessee's as many cross objections CO Nos. 118 to 120 & 123/Ahd/2013 thereto on the other hand raise the following identical substantive grounds.
"1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the no disallowance/ addition u/s 80IB (10) was called for as nothing incriminating against the assessee was found in the course of search u/s 132.
2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the Assessing Officer himself opted not to make assessment & disallowance after issuing notices u/s 148 & 153C for the reason of not obtaining of project completion certificate by the assessee on or before 31.03.2008.ITA No.1787/Ahd/11 & IT(SS)A Nos. 122 to 124 & 127/Ahd/13
with C.O. Nos. 118 to 120 & 123/Ahd/13 A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2006-07 (B. Nanji Enterprises Ltd.) -4-
3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the projects were found completed in the course of survey conducted u/s 133A on 26/05/2008 to verify correctness of claim u/s 80IB (10) by Survey Officials who physically visited the respective project sites.
4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that at the time of obtaining project approval, there was no requirement of obtaining project completion certificate for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IB (10) of the Act.
5. The Ld. CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the Assessing Officer himself opted not to make any addition/ disallowance u/s 80IB (10) after issuing notice u/s 148 for A.Y. 2002-03 for the reason that assessee had not obtained project completion certificates on or before 31/03/2008 involving the same projects."
4. Learned representatives inform us at the outset that the main issue on merits therefore is that of correctness of assessee's deduction claim raised u/s.80IB(10) of the Act in all the impugned assessment years. We sought to know about details of the relevant housing projects. Learned Authorized Representative files a compilation chart indicating following residential projects vis-à-vis their dates of approval as under:
IT(SS)A No. IT(SS)A No. IT(SS)A No. IT(SS)A No.
122/Ahd/13 123/Ahd/13 124/Ahd/13 127/Ahd/13
A.Y. 04-05 A.Y. 05-06 A.Y. 06-07 A.Y. 09-10
38250213 28194396 10482953 7185020
India Colony- India Colony- India Colony- Shubhnagar-
09/08/99 09/08/99 09/08/99 03/03/2005
Nisarg-18/05/02 Nisarg-18/05/02 Nisarg-18/05/02
Vibhusha- Vibhusha- Vibhusha-
15/11/2000 15/11/2000 15/11/2000
Learned Departmental Representative is fair enough in not disputing the correctness of the above compilation. We thereafter sought to know the reason of listing assessee's appeal ITA No.1787/Ahd/2011 for assessment year 2005-06. Learned representatives inform us that the same pertains to regular assessment followed by the abovestated search involving the latter consequential appeals arising from Section 153A proceedings. We therefore proceed to deal with assessee's abovestated appeal first.
ITA No.1787/Ahd/11 & IT(SS)A Nos. 122 to 124 & 127/Ahd/13with C.O. Nos. 118 to 120 & 123/Ahd/13 A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2006-07 (B. Nanji Enterprises Ltd.) -5-
5. A few facts may be noticed. The assessee company constructs the above residential projects. It claimed the impugned deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act amounting to Rs.2.79crores in question. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same in assessment order dated 31.12.2007 placing heavy reliance on his findings pertaining to the very issue in the preceding three assessment years. He concluded that the assessee's explanation of having succeeded in tribunal in the said assessment years could not be accepted since the Revenue had preferred appeal before the hon'ble jurisdictional high court. The Assessing Officer thus reiterated his twin reasoning that the assessee was neither owner of the land nor did it develop the projects in question itself.
6. The CIT(A) affirms Assessing Officer's findings in his lower appellate order as under:
"5.3 I have considered the fats of the case, assessment order and appellant's submission. Appellant claimed deduction under section 80IB(10) in respect of housing projects, however appellant is not eligible for this deduction in view of the following reasons-
1- The societies which are the owners of land were owning the housing project. Appellant was appointed as contractor to carry out construction work and other related activities.
2- Appellant was paid remuneration for the activities as per para 3 on page 6 of development agreements. If appellant would have been developer, there is no question of making payment for remuneration to the appellant. All activities were done in the name of and for societies building the housing projects.
3- While making payment to the appellant, the societies also deducted IDS at the rate applicable to the contractor which clearly shows that appellant is nothing but a contractor in housing projects.
4- These housing projects were not conceived, planned and executed by the appellant. Appellant has not taken any risk relating to these projects therefore appellant cannot claim deduction available to persons who are taking risks of projects.
5- Land was not transferred nor was possession of the same given to the appellant. This means appellant was only deployed for construction work and not to handle the entire housing project.ITA No.1787/Ahd/11 & IT(SS)A Nos. 122 to 124 & 127/Ahd/13
with C.O. Nos. 118 to 120 & 123/Ahd/13 A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2006-07 (B. Nanji Enterprises Ltd.) -6- 6-The vital condition for completing the project before 1-04-2008 is not fulfilled in most of the projects as found by the assessing officer during survey. No completion certificate was issued by the local authority and therefore these projects which were not completed before the deadline are not eligible for deduction.
In the light of above facts, the appellant is not eligible for deduction under section 80 IB (10) of IT act. However appellant relied upon the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Radhe developers in which the deduction was allowed even to those developers who are not registered owners of land and were developing projects after signing development agreements with transferring the land. However after this decision, ITAT Ahmedabad in another decision in group cases- Shakti Corporation and others, Baroda held that the earlier decision in the case of Radhe developers will apply only in the case where developer takes entire risk of the project and is not a mere contractor getting remuneration for construction and other activities. Wherever entire risk of the project is not taken by such person, they are not eligible for deduction under section 80 IB (10). In view of the facts of the appellant mentioned by the assessing officer in detail and in brief earlier, it is clear that appellant is not a developer in real sense and only a contractor who is not eligible for deduction under section 80 IB (10) as held by ITAT Ahmedabad in later decision in the case of Shakti Corporation and others. The earlier decision in the case of Radhe developers is not applicable in the case of appellant in view of the facts discussed earlier. Accordingly the claim of deduction on all projects made by the appellant is not correct and therefore the disallowance made by the assessing officer is confirmed."
7. We have heard both the parties. It is evident that the assessee's deduction claim raised in the impugned assessment year pertaining to the above three projects is very much identical to that claimed in assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05 (supra). Page 178 of the paper book contains learned CIT(A)'s order for assessment year 2002-03 dated 25.07.2005 as followed in the said succeeding two assessment years deleting the very disallowance as made by the Assessing Officer by adopting the abovestated reasoning. The sole exception however is regarding reason no.6 that the assessee had not fulfilled the vital condition of having completed the projects in question before 31.03.2008 as noticed by the Assessing Officer in the course of survey. The Revenue then appears to have filed ITA Nos. 2281/Ahd/2005, ITA No.1448/Ahd/2006 & ITA No.148/Ahd/2007 for the said three assessment years seeking to revive Section 80IB(10) disallowance as deleted in above lower appellate proceedings. This tribunal clubbed all ITA No.1787/Ahd/11 & IT(SS)A Nos. 122 to 124 & 127/Ahd/13 with C.O. Nos. 118 to 120 & 123/Ahd/13 A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2006-07 (B. Nanji Enterprises Ltd.) -7- such cases with the lead appeal of "Radhe Developers" ITA No.2482/Ahd/2006. A co-ordinate bench thereafter dismissed all such Revenue's appeals vide common order dated 29.06.2007. The Revenue then filed Tax Appeal Nos. 1497 to 1499/2008. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court declined the same in its judgment dated 13.12.2011. The Revenue's Special Leave Petition filed in hon'ble apex court also met the same fate as indicated in page 352 of the paper book. It is therefore clear that the CIT(A) first five reasons extracted hereinabove denying the impugned deduction to assessee are the same since the Assessing Officer himself is very fair in not disputing the similarity of facts vis-à-vis the issue of Section 80IB(10) deduction involved in preceding and impugned assessment year. We thus reverse CIT(A)'s first five reasons by following hon'ble jurisdictional high court's judgment hereinabove.
8. We now proceed to deal with the next equally important issue of completion of projects. There is no dispute that assessee's abovestated projects stood approved well before the coming into operation of the amended Section 80IB(10) w.e.f. 01.04.2005. The legislature inserted these amendments vide Finance Act, 2004. The Revenue's argument accordingly before us is that the above non completion of projects on assessee's part before 31.03.2008 in first three projects and before 31.03.2009 in the fourth one renders it ineligible for Section 80IB(10) deduction in view of clause
(a)(i)(ii) r.w. Explanation (ii). It quotes hon'ble Madhya Pradesh high court's judgment in [2015] 379 ITR 107 (MP) CIT vs. Global Reality that such a completion has to be before the said stipulated dates. And also that the date of completion of the housing project is to be taken on the date of which the completion certificate is issued by the concerned local authority. Shri Patel vehemently argues that the assessee's deduction claim in all the assessment years in question is hit by the above amended provision.
ITA No.1787/Ahd/11 & IT(SS)A Nos. 122 to 124 & 127/Ahd/13with C.O. Nos. 118 to 120 & 123/Ahd/13 A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2006-07 (B. Nanji Enterprises Ltd.) -8-
9. Shri Sakar Sharma however seeks to rebut the Revenue's above contention. He files before us plethora of judgments in raising a contention that the assessee's projects approved before 01.04.2005 in any case do not come within the purview of the amended provision already held to be having prospective effect in hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in Manan Corporation's case vs. CIT 356 ITR 44 (Guj.), CIT vs. G R Developers 22 taxmann.com 265 (Karnataka), CIT vs. Veena Developers 277 CTR 297 (SC), CIT vs. CHD Developers Ltd. 362 ITR 177 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Jain Housing & Construction Co. 256 CTR 408 (Madras), CIT vs. Happy Home Enterprise 372 ITR 1 (Bombay) as approved in hon'ble apex court's decision in Sarkar Builders 375 ITR 392 as well as a tribunal's decision in Shri Venkatesh Developers ITA Nos. 857 to 860/PN/2012/2012 dated 15.01.2016 and the last decision of hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in CIT vs. Tarnetar Corporation 362 ITR 174 (Guj). We then sought to know about completion state of the projects in question. Shri Sharma invited our attention to the CIT(A)'s order in all these cases forming subject matter of Revenue's four appeals that the assessee has very much completed the projects in question before the said stipulated dates in view of its Auditor's reports in Form No.10CCB containing necessary certificates to this effect as forming part of the case file. He then informs us that the residential units in question already are complete in all civic amenities as occupied by the residence duly assessed to the relevant local laws. We then sought to get information about the exact reason of the fact that the assessee has not filed completion certificates issued by the local authority. The assessee takes us to para 6.6 in CIT(A)'s order referring to the Local Authority's response to Section 133(6) enquiries that the delay in question in due to technical reason. Learned Departmental Representative fails to dispute the factual position as contained in the CIT(A)'s order for assessment year 2004-05 in the instant batch reading as under:
ITA No.1787/Ahd/11 & IT(SS)A Nos. 122 to 124 & 127/Ahd/13with C.O. Nos. 118 to 120 & 123/Ahd/13 A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2006-07 (B. Nanji Enterprises Ltd.) -9-
6. I have gone through the submissions of the AR of the appellant, the details filed during the appellate proceedings and the assessment order carefully. It is seen that appellant had obtained project approval on 09/08/1999, 07/08/2001 and 21/10/2001 respectively for the India Colony Project; on 18/05/2002 for the Nisarg Project and on 15/11/2000 for the Vibhusha Project and, therefore, provisions of section 80-EB (10) as existed prior to its substitution by the Finance (No 2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01-04-2005 were applicable. As per said provisions, there was no time limit by which the appellant was required to complete the project.
Likewise, there was no stipulation in the said provisions that the project will be considered to be completed on the date on which completion certificate is issued by the Local Authority. It is also seen that the assessment u/s 143(3) for this assessment year was made on 28/04/2006 wherein disallowance was made on the ground that the appellant was not a owner of land and therefore, it was held that the appellant was not the developers under the provisions of section 80-IB (10). However, it is also noticed that while making assessment, the Assessing Officer had not made any such disallowance for want of completion certificate.
6.1 It is also seen that for Nisarg & Vibhusha Projects appellant had its own land and had not entered into any development agreement with any society. The addition made by the AO was deleted by the Ld. CIT (A) and order of the CIT (A) was subsequently confirmed by Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Radhe Developers & Others reported in 113 TTJ 300 (Ahd) wherein the appellant was also a party. The order of the ITAT was subsequently confirmed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Radhe Developers reported in 341 ITR 403 (Guj). In that case also the appellant was a party before the High Court. The Department did not accept the decision of the Gujarat High Court and filed a Special Leave petition before The Supreme Court. The SLP of the Department before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been dismissed by order dtd 07/12/2012 in SLP(Civil) CC No 21333 of 2012 in the case of the appellant.
6.2 It is also seen that the Assessing Officer had carried out survey u/s 133A on 26/05/2008 to verify correctness of claim u/s 80-ffi (10). On physical inspection during the survey, the project was found to be completed but it-was observed by the Survey Officials that the appellant had not obtained completion certificates in respect of Nisarg and Vibhusha housing Projects which as per the opinion of the Assessing Officer was required to be obtained on or before 31.03.2008. It is also seen that notices u/s 147 were issued only in respect Nisarg and Vibhusha Housing Projects and no adverse view was taken after survey in respect of India Colony Project. It is also seen that reopened proceedings for A.Y. 2002-03 were dropped and no disallowance was made in respect India Colony Project.
6.3 The provisions of section 80-IB (10) which were substituted by the Finance (No
2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 1.4.2005 have no retrospective application. The amendment in this case i substantive in nature, therefore, the new provisions would be applicable to the projects which are approved on or after 01.04.2005. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Manan Construction vs. AGIT in Tax Appeal No 1053 of 2011 in order dated 03/09/2012 and the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs Brahma Associates reported in 333 ITR 289 (Bom) and Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT, ITA No.1787/Ahd/11 & IT(SS)A Nos. 122 to 124 & 127/Ahd/13 with C.O. Nos. 118 to 120 & 123/Ahd/13 A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2006-07 (B. Nanji Enterprises Ltd.) - 10 -
Central vs. Anriya Project Management Services (P ) Ltd reported in 21 Taxmanl40 (Kar) wherein it has been held that .the amended provisions are substantive and are prospective in nature and therefore, cannot be applied in respect of projects approved and initiated on or before 01.04.2005.
6.4 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Tarnetar Corporation reported in 26 Taxman 180 (Guj) has held that if substantial compliance of provisions has been made and if assessee is able to show that the project was completed within the statutory time limit, deduction u/s 80-IB (10) cannot be denied merely because assessee has not been able to obtain project completion certificate before the specified time limit.
6.5 It is also seen that various Tribunals have consistently held that in respect of the projects which were approved and initiated on or before 01.04.2005, disallowance cannot be made solely for the reason that the assessee failed to obtain project completion certificates within the specified time limit. It is seen that Vishakhapatnam Bench of IT AT in the case of Vishnu Builders vs. ACIT (ITA No. 178-180/2011), Kolkata Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. North City Developers (ITA No. 1307/Kol/2010) and have also held that the deduction u/s 80- IB (10) cannot be denied merely because assessee has not been able to obtain project completion certificate before the specified time limit.
6.6 In the case of the appellant, the Local Authority in inquiries u/s 133(6) has confirmed that they were not issuing completion certificates due to technical reasons. The appellant on its part has furnished architect's certificate as well as auditor's report in Form No 10CCB certifying that the project was completed before 31.03.2008, In support of the fact that the project was completed before 31.03.2008, the appellant had also furnished copies of the sale deeds of the flats sold, tax assessment/electricity bills etc in the names of the purchasers.
6.7 In the present case since project was initiated before 1.4.2005, as discussed above, the law had not mandated that project completion certificates be obtained for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IB (10) of the Act prior to the amendment with effect from 1.4.2005. Even if it is held that since the project was completed after the amended provisions came into force, still deduction cannot be denied to the appellant because authorities themselves were not issuing completion certificates as confirmed in inquiries u/s 133(6) of the Act. In such a situation, the appellant cannot be blamed for not complying with one of the condition specified in section 80-IB (10) of the Act. In such circumstances the law does not compel one to do that which one cannot I possibly perform. It means that where the law creates a duty but the party on whom the duty is cast is disabled from performing it, and has no remedy or control over it, then the law will in general excuse him from such duty. This proposition has been explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the scope and application of doctrine of "lex nan cogit at impossibilia" (the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform) and "impossibilium nulla obligatio est" (the law does not expect the party to do the impossible). ;
ITA No.1787/Ahd/11 & IT(SS)A Nos. 122 to 124 & 127/Ahd/13with C.O. Nos. 118 to 120 & 123/Ahd/13 A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2006-07 (B. Nanji Enterprises Ltd.) - 11 -
10. It is thus clear that although the assessee has filed for issuance of completion certificate to the local authority well before the stipulated dates i.e. 31.03.2008 except in assessment years 2009-10 wherein the relevant date is 31.03.2009 pertaining to the fourth project (supra), the same is held up because of technical reasons. We refer to hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in Tarnetar Corporation (supra) upholding this tribunal's order for assessment year 2006-07 wherein the project in question had been approved before 01.04.2004, the said assessee applied for BU permission to the local authority before 31.03.2008 which stood rejected followed by subsequent revised permission on 19.04.2009. Their lordships observe in said factual backdrop that delay in getting BU permission cannot be held to be fatal to Section 80IB(1) deduction claim as "not every condition of the statute can be seen as mandatory" in case the same stands substantially complied with. We are of the opinion in this factual and legal backdrop that we have to necessarily follow hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision even if the Revenue finds strong support of any hon'ble non jurisdictional high court deciding the very issue against the assessee. Other case laws (supra) seem to deal with clause (d) of the statutory provision pertaining to commercial area permissible in a residential project which is not the issue before us. We thus do not deem it appropriate to venture into a detailed discussion. We accordingly accept assessee's deduction claim of Rs.2.97 crores in ITA No.1787/Ahd/2011 for assessment year 2005-06. This appeal is partly allowed in above terms.
11. We follow our detailed discussion on the issue of completion of assessee's residential projects in all the remaining for assessment years involving Revenue's as many appeals and assessee's cross objections hereinabove. We thus find no reason to reverse ld. CIT(A)'s identical conclusion extracted in preceding paragraphs holding the assessee to have ITA No.1787/Ahd/11 & IT(SS)A Nos. 122 to 124 & 127/Ahd/13 with C.O. Nos. 118 to 120 & 123/Ahd/13 A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2006-07 (B. Nanji Enterprises Ltd.) - 12 -
completed the residential projects before 31.03.2008 and 31.03.2009; as the case may be (supra). The Revenue's appeal IT(SS)A Nos. 122 to 124 & 127/Ahd/2013 fail. Shri Sakar Sharma thereafter submits that the assessee no more wises to press for its substantive grounds in cross objection in all four assessment years challenging validity of Section 153A proceedings. We appreciate this fair stand. The assessee's cross objections CO No.118 to 120 & 123/Ahd/2013 are dismissed as not pressed at this stage.
12. We thus accept assessee's appeal ITA No.1787/Ahd/2011 in part. The Revenue's four appeals IT(SS)A Nos. 122 to 124 and 127/Ahd/2013 are dismissed. The assessee's cross objections CO Nos. 118 to 120 & 123/Ahd/2013 are dismissed as not pressed.
[Pronounced in the open Court on this the 31st day of March, 2017.] Sd/- Sd/-
(AMARJIT SINGH) (S. S. GODARA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad: Dated 31/03/2017
True Copy
S.K.SINHA
आदे श क त ल
प अ े
षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. राज व / Revenue
2. आवेदक / Assessee
3. संबं धत आयकर आयु!त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु!त- अपील / CIT (A)
5. )वभागीय ,-त-न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद /
DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड3 फाइल / Guard file.
By order/आदे श से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।