Appeal admitted after delay condoned, deduction disallowance overturned, issue remanded for reconsideration.

Delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to valid reasons, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits. The disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB for late filing of the return was overturned, as the return was filed within the extended period under Section 139(4). The issue of deduction under Section 80IB due to non-submission of completion certificate was remanded for reconsideration based on architect's certificate and other evidence, following precedents. The appeal was partly allowed, with outcomes favoring the assessee on the mentioned issues.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB due to late filing of return.
3. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB due to non-submission of completion certificate.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal was delayed by 363 days. The assessee attributed the delay to the sudden demise of his counsel and his own accident, which resulted in a fractured leg. The Tribunal acknowledged these reasons and cited the Supreme Court's ruling in *Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 2 SCC 107*, which emphasized that 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to serve the ends of justice. The Tribunal found no culpable negligence or malafide on the part of the assessee and concluded that there was sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the delay was condoned under Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits.

2. Disallowance of Deduction Under Section 80IB Due to Late Filing of Return:
The assessee filed the return of income on 27/10/2009, beyond the due date of 30/09/2009, but within the extended period under Section 139(4). The Tribunal considered the audit report, which was filed on time, and noted that the delay was due to the ill health of the assessee's advocate. The Tribunal relied on several judicial precedents, including *Trustee of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable and Chaleshwar Temple Trust Vs CIT (207 ITR 368) (Bom)(HC)* and *Sukhkarta Developers and Builders Vs PCIT (Nagpur) (Trib) 596 & 597/Nag/2016*, which held that returns filed within the time specified under Section 139(4) should be treated as sufficient compliance for the purpose of Section 80AC. The Tribunal concluded that the return filed within the time limit prescribed under Section 139(4) is sufficient compliance, and thus, no disallowance under Section 80IB was warranted on this ground.

3. Disallowance of Deduction Under Section 80IB Due to Non-Submission of Completion Certificate:
The assessee's housing project was approved on 31/01/2006, and the construction was to be completed by 31/03/2011. For the assessment year 2009-10, the project was not completed, and no completion certificate was obtained. The Tribunal noted that in the subsequent assessment year 2010-11, the CIT(A) allowed the deduction based on the architect's completion certificate and other circumstantial evidence, relying on the Nagpur Tribunal's decision in *New High Rise Construction Vs. ITO ITA No. 285/Nag/2015*. The Tribunal found that the issue of project completion was no longer res integra, as the revenue had accepted the project's completion in the subsequent year. To maintain consistency, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the A.O. with directions to consider the architect's certificate and other evidences. If the conditions laid down by the Tribunal in *New High Rise Construction* were met, the A.O. was directed to allow the deduction under Section 80IB(10).

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB due to late filing of return was overturned. The issue of non-submission of the completion certificate was remanded to the A.O. for reconsideration based on the architect's certificate and other circumstantial evidence.

---