2017 (4) TMI 1544 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds disallowance of deduction under section 80-IB(10) for breaching conditions

Shri Syed Aleemullah, Prop. S.A. Developers Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle- 4 (1), Bengaluru.

Shri Syed Aleemullah, Prop. S.A. Developers Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle- 4 (1), Bengaluru. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Alleged deviation from the sanctioned plan.3. Alleged violation of clause (f) of sub-section (10) of section 80-IB.Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80-IB(10):The primary issue revolves around the disallowance of a deduction claim amounting to Rs. 10,29,94,124/- under section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, engaged in land development and civil contracts, filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 6,93,890/- for the assessment year 2011-12. However, the assessment was completed at a total income of Rs. 10,36,88,014/-, primarily due to the disallowance of the aforementioned deduction.2. Alleged Deviation from the Sanctioned Plan:The Assessing Officer (AO) referred the project to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) to verify the built-up area of the flats. The DVO's report indicated that certain duplex apartments exceeded the permissible area of 1500 sq.ft. The AO concluded that the assessee deviated from the sanctioned plan, as the Bangalore Development Authority had levied a penalty for these deviations. The AO held that this deviation violated clause (c) of section 80-IB(10), which stipulates that the built-up area should not exceed 1500 sq.ft.3. Alleged Violation of Clause (f) of Sub-section (10) of Section 80-IB:The AO also noted that the assessee sold multiple flats to related parties, which violated clause (f) of sub-section (10) of section 80-IB. This clause, effective from 01/04/2010, prohibits the allotment of more than one residential unit in a housing project to an individual or their relatives. The assessee argued that the agreements of sale were entered into before the insertion of clause (f), but the AO rejected this claim due to lack of evidence and the timing of the agreements.Tribunal's Findings:The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of section 80-IB(10) and concluded that the assessee did not comply with the stipulated conditions. Specifically, the Tribunal found that:- The assessee deviated from the sanctioned plan by constructing duplex flats exceeding the permissible area.- The assessee violated clause (f) by allotting multiple units to related parties after the clause's insertion date.- The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that subsequent alterations by buyers should not affect the deduction claim, noting the lack of evidence for such claims and the necessity of local authority permissions for such alterations.The Tribunal also dismissed the reliance on various judicial precedents cited by the assessee, stating that these cases did not apply to the specific facts at hand. The Tribunal emphasized that the intent behind section 80-IB(10) is to promote housing for low and middle-income groups, and any attempt to circumvent this through multiple allotments to related parties cannot be permitted.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision to disallow the deduction under section 80-IB(10), concluding that the assessee violated both the area restriction and the allotment conditions. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the specific conditions laid out in tax provisions to qualify for deductions.