Tribunal clarifies deduction rules for additional constructed area eligibility under section 80IB(10)

The Tribunal held that the Assessee was eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10) only for the originally sanctioned area, not the additional constructed area in violation of the approved plan. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments, emphasizing that permission in the developer's name was not necessary for the deduction. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reevaluate the eligibility of the additional constructed area for the deduction, stressing the importance of considering various factors in determining eligibility. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with a focus on a thorough reexamination by the Assessing Officer.

---

---

Issues involved:
Claim of deduction under section 80IB for additional constructed area in violation of approved plan.

Analysis:
The case involved cross-appeals by the Assessee and Revenue against the orders of the CIT(A)-VI, Hyderabad dated 31.01.2013, focusing on the claim of deduction under section 80IB. The Assessee, a firm engaged in real estate development, claimed a deduction of &8377; 32,22,094 under section 80IB(10) for a housing project. The Assessee had constructed an area exceeding the originally approved plan, leading to a dispute with the Assessing Officer (A.O.) regarding the eligibility for the deduction. The A.O. disallowed the claim under 80IB, citing violations of the approved plan and lack of proper documentation. The CIT(A) partially agreed with the A.O., allowing deduction only on the original approved area but rejecting the estimation of income by the A.O. The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing against the allowance of deduction for the additional constructed area and the estimation of income.

The Tribunal held that the Assessee was eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10) only for the originally sanctioned area of 9763 sq. meters, as the additional constructed area was not in compliance with the approved plan. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's grounds, emphasizing that the permission in the name of the developer was not a requirement for claiming the deduction, as confirmed in a previous case. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of income estimation, supporting the CIT(A)'s decision to disapprove the estimation due to lack of evidence against the Assessee's books of accounts.

Regarding the additional constructed area in violation of the approved plan, the Tribunal referred to a similar case and highlighted the importance of interpreting the deduction provision under section 80IB in a manner that aligns with the legislative intent of promoting affordable housing. However, due to insufficient evidence and lack of clarity on the revised plans and construction details, the Tribunal directed the A.O. to reexamine the eligibility of the additional constructed area for the deduction under section 80IB(10). The Tribunal stressed the importance of considering factors like flat area norms, penthouse construction, and accounting methods in determining the eligibility for the deduction.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a thorough reexamination by the A.O. to determine the extent of profits disclosed by the Assessee and ensuring a fair opportunity for the Assessee to present their case.

---