Tribunal quashes assessment orders, excludes specific areas from built-up area calculation

The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders due to being passed on a non-existent entity and ruled that certain areas like service area, window projections, cupboard projections, and flower bed areas should not be included in the built-up area calculation for Section 80IB(10) deduction. The revenue appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's appeals were partly allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment order passed on a dissolved entity.
2. Validity of the appointment of the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO).
3. Denial of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act.
4. Inclusion of various areas (flower bed, service area, window projections, cupboard projections) in the built-up area computation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Assessment Order Passed on a Dissolved Entity:
The assessee contended that the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A was invalid as it was passed in the name of a dissolved entity, Nahar Enterprises, which had been converted into Nahar Builders Limited. The Tribunal noted that the search warrant and subsequent Panchnamas were issued in the name of the dissolved entity, despite the department being informed of the dissolution. Citing precedents such as the Delhi High Court's decision in Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. CIT and Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT v. Intel Technology India (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal held that assessments made on a non-existent entity are void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed as they were legally invalid.

2. Validity of the Appointment of the DVO:
The assessee argued that the DVO's appointment was invalid as he was not part of the search party. However, the Tribunal found that the DVO, being a technical expert from the Central Public Works Department, was appropriately engaged for the technical task of measuring the flats. The Tribunal concluded that the DVO's involvement was legitimate and dismissed the assessee's objection on this ground.

3. Denial of Deduction Under Section 80IB(10):
The AO denied the assessee's deduction under Section 80IB(10) on the grounds that the built-up area of many residential units exceeded the prescribed limit of 1000 sq. ft. The assessee argued that the deduction should be allowed as the measurements by the DVO were inaccurate and the original assessment had already verified the built-up area. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument, noting that the flower bed area and common wall area should not be included in the built-up area calculation. The Tribunal referenced its earlier decision in ITO v. Poddar Ashish Developers and Commonwealth Developers v. ACIT, which excluded areas below floor level and open to the sky from the built-up area.

4. Inclusion of Various Areas in the Built-Up Area Computation:
The AO included service area, window projections, cupboard projections, and flower bed areas in the built-up area, leading to the denial of the deduction. The Tribunal, however, held that these areas should not be included:
- Flower Bed Area: The Tribunal ruled that flower beds, being open to the sky and below floor level, do not form part of the constructed area of a flat.
- Service Area: The Tribunal found that service ducts, mainly used for maintenance purposes, should not be included in the built-up area.
- Window Projections and Cupboard Projections: The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that these projections are ornamental features and should not be included in the built-up area.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for being passed on a non-existent entity and held that the service area, window projections, cupboard projections, and flower bed areas should not be included in the built-up area for the purpose of Section 80IB(10) deduction. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed, and the assessee's appeals were partly allowed.

---