TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 775
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2007-08, was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 4. The Ld CIT erred in passing the impugned order under section 263 of the Act, inspite of the fact that the assessment order for the AY 2007-08, stood merged in the appellate order passed by the CIT(A) for the AY 2007-08. 5. The ld CIT erred in ignoring all the relevant facts and legal precedents cited by the appellant in support of its claim that in the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case of the appellant, no action under section 263, was called for. 6. All the aforesaid Grounds of Appeal are without prejudice to one another." 2. The assessee is a builder and developer and assessment was framed vide order dated 17/12/2009 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee filed return of income at nil after claiming deduction under section 80 IB(10) of the Act amounting to Rs.13,50,93,090/-. The AO has denied the deduction and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.13,50,93,090/-. The sole ground on which the deduction is denied by the AO was that the project was approved prior to 1/10/1998 and according to one of the conditions laid down....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red in respect of A.Y 2006-07 has been followed by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned assessment year and A.O has been directed to grant deduction to the assessee. 4. Subsequent to the order passed by CIT(A) in respect of A.Y 2007-08, Ld. CIT has issued show cause notice under section 263 of the Act to the assessee vide letter dated 27/2/2012. Copy of such show cause notice is placed at page -3 of the paper book. In the show cause notice it has been mentioned that certain discrepancies have been noticed on going through assessment record and assessment order. Reference is made to the letter dated 3/2/2007 issued by Dy.Chief Engineer, Building Proposals (City) of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (Corporation) in which it was informed that Corporation has no objection in occupying the building for entire wing D,E & F. It is also mentioned in the letter that it is a part occupation permission. Thus Ld. CIT has observed that the said letter cannot be said to be completion certificate. She referred that one of the conditions for claiming deduction under section 80 IB (10) for the projects which have been commenced before 1/4/2004 is that the construction should be completed on or befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CIT has observed that the focus of AO was only on the condition regarding commencement of the project and no enquiry or verification whatsoever was made in respect of completion of the project before 31/3/2008. 6. Ld. CIT also conducted enquiry from MCGM office which vide letter dated 19/3/2012 informed that part occupation certificate was issued to assessee for Wing A to G and completion certificate was neither applied by the assessee nor it was issued. The reasons for non issue of completion certificate as mentioned by Ld. CIT are as follows: "(i) Adequate strong water drain is not provided in the let out areas. (ii) NOC from SWD is not submitted. (iii) NOC from railway authority is not submitted (iv) Even as on date of passing this order i.e. 27.03.2012, the building completion certificate is neither applied for by the assessee nor is issued. This shows that the assessee has bitterly failed to comply with the provisions of explanation (ii) of section 80 IB(10)(a). When the letter of BMC was show caused to the assessee during the proceedings u/s.263, the counsel of the assessee could not submit anything except r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8. Aggrieved by disallowance an appeal was filed which was decided by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 25/3/2010. In the appeal it is held that assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80 IB(10) as the project had commenced after 1/10/1998. On these facts the assessee is challenging the validity of impugned order on the basis of following grounds/arguments. i) The condition regarding completion of project does not apply to the projects which have been approved by the local authorities before 1/4/2004. It is the case of the assessee that the condition of completion of project is brought on the statute only by the Finance (No.2) Act 2004 w.e.f. 1/4/2005. Prior to that there was no such condition, therefore, the eligibility of deduction must be linked to the date of approval / commencement of the project. To support such contention reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Manan Corporation vs. ACIT, 78 DTR 205 (Guj), wherein it has been held insertion of clause (d) in section 80 IB(10) brought by Finance (No.2) Act 2004 is not retrospective but only prospective, therefore, it will not be applicable in respect of housing p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icate prior to 31/3/2008 were considered to be sufficient for fulfilling the condition of completion certificate. vi) It was submitted that the assessment order passed by the AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, therefore, exercise of power under section 263 of the Act by the Ld. CIT was wrong. vii) Lastly, it was submitted that assessment order passed by AO had merged with the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), therefore, Ld. CIT was wrong in invoking the provisions of section 263. Reference in this regard was made to the following decisions: 1. Shobha Developers Ltd. vs. CIT, (2012) 191 TR (TR1)764 (Bang) 2. CIT vs. Shri Arbuda Mill Ltd. 231 ITR 50 (SC) Passing reference has also been made in the summary of arguments regarding number of other judgments of various High Courts which, according to Ld AR also support the proposition. After perusing the paper book of case laws we found that these decisions are as follows: 1. CIT vs. Farida Prime Tannery , 259 ITR 342(Mad) 2. CIT vs. Mehsana Distric Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., 263 ITR 645.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 10/10/12 in ITA No.2745/Mum/12, wherein it is held that where assessment order is passed by the AO without proper application of mind and without making proper enquiries, the assessment order will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thus it was held that there is no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT vide which assessment order was only set aside with a direction to pass fresh assessment order after a detailed verification of submissions given by the assessee in the return and the statements filed etc. 9. Concluding his arguments it was pleaded by Ld. DR that power under section 263 has rightly been exercised by Ld. CIT and his order should be upheld. 10. In the rejoinder, it was submitted by Ld. AR that vide reply dated 14/9/2009 the assessee had submitted that on completion of "G" Wing part occupation certificate was issued by the MCGM and the building was fully completed and MCGM authority had given full occupation for the "G" Wing. Reference was also made to pages 136 to 151 of the paper book on which copies of possession letters given to the occupants are submitted to show that buildings in respect of D,E & F Wings were completed before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3-04 and 2004-05. On examining of all these details the AO again put a query to the assessee vide para-3.4. In para-3.5 AO again has referred to the proceedings for A.Y 2006-07 and the letter of the assessee submitted in respect of that show cause notice dated 24/12/2007 and then reply of the assessee dated 10/1/2008 furnished during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y 2006-07 is reproduced, which is running into almost 14 pages and then AO vide para-3.6 has also observed that the submission of the assessee are duly considered but the claim of the assessee under section 80 IB(10) cannot be accepted. 12. Then the AO has given the reasons and has made reference to provisions of section 80 IB (10) prior to amendment by Finance Act 2004 and then the amendment brought by Finance (No.2) Act 2004 w.e.f. 1/4/2005. While mentioning such amendment which is w.e.f. 1/4/2005 the AO has also mentioned about both the explanations. After reproducing the amendment and referring to the substituted provisions w.e.f. 1/4/2005 the AO has observed that the legislature has laid down some parameters to be specified for allowing deduction under section 10 IB(10). According to AO, the main param....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to AO commencement of the development started when Bombay Gas Company Ltd. complied with the Intimation of Disapproval(IOD) under section 346 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act vide letter dated 1/8/1992. The commencement certificate was issued by BMC on 28/11/1992 after Bombay Gas Company Ltd. agreed to comply with the conditions specified in the IOD. The AO observed that in effect the commencement of development of project started when Bombay Gas Company agreed to comply with the IOD conditions after issue of IOD on 1/8/1992 and incurred huge expenditure on the project to the tune of Rs.4,68,14,023/- before transferring the project to the assessee firm. Out of such expenditure an amount of Rs.1,80,46,496/- was incurred by Bombay Gas Company who carried out site preparation works like leveling of the ground, construction of boundary wall, employed sufficient number of persons to execute the project as evidenced by substantial sum paid on account of salary by Bombay Gas Company Ltd. before 1/4/1998. In view of all these facts AO has come to the conclusion that these facts established beyond doubt that Bombay Gas Company had commenced development of the approved project wel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, AO has observed that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80 IB(10) and in this manner Ld. A.O has rejected the claim of the assessee regarding grant of deduction under section 80 IB(10). 15. The whole tenor of the assessment order is focused on fulfillment of condition laid down in Explanation (i). Wherever reference is made to the completion, the same is made with reference to the name of M/s. Bombay Gas Company which is the original owner of the project just to show that what was continued by the assessee was an earlier project approved in the name of M/s. Bombay Gas Company. Thus any reference to the completion certificate in the assessment order cannot be linked to the fulfillment of condition laid down in Explanation (ii). Therefore, it is clear that during the course of assessment proceedings the whole focus of the A.O was regarding the commencement of project and on the reference to the assessment proceedings and assessment order for assessment year 2006-07. Thus there is no force in the contention of the Ld.AR that while framing the assessment the AO has applied his mind on the fulfillment condition laid down in Explanation(ii), which speaks of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on or after 1-10-1998. Such housing project approved by the local authority before 1-4-2004 has to be completed on or before 31-3-2008 and the housing project approved on or after 1-4-2004 should be completed within four years from the end of the financial year in which the project is approved by the local authority. For this purpose the date of approval shall be the date on which the building plan is first approved by the local authority and the date of completion of the housing project, shall be the date on which the completion certificate is issued by such authority. It has also been provided that the built-up area of the shops and other commercial establishments included in the housing project should not exceed five per cent of the aggregate built-up area of the housing project or 2000 sq. ft., whichever is less. The expression "built-up area" has also been defined for this purpose. This section does not specifically provide area limit for the garden, the development plan roads, internal means of access, etc. in the housing project. Therefore, the same should conform to the project plan approved by the local authority in accordance with the regulations in force....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....but could not tell the citation correctly. The decision is Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, is reported in 99 ITR 375(Del), wherein it has been held that the position and function of the ITO is different from a Civil Court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be accepted by a civil court in the absence of any rebuttal. The civil court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the basis of the pleading and evidence which comes before it. The Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry. It is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an inquiry. The meaning to be given to the word "erroneous" in section 263 emerges out of this context. It is because it is incumbent on the Income-tax Officer to further investigate the facts stated in the return when circumstances would make such an inquiry prudent that the word " erroneous " in section 263 includes the failure to make such an inquiry. The order becomes erroneous because such an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd this task is entrusted to the revenue. If due to erroneous order of the ITO, the revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Their Lordship have also held that an incorrect assumption of fact or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. It has already been mentioned that it is a case where AO did not apply correct law applicable to the impugned assessment year when he failed to take cognizance of statutory condition for allowability of deduction under section 80 IB (10) which was the obligation of the assessee to furnish completion certificate issued by the local authority. Thus according to the provisions of section 263, Ld. CIT was right in invoking provisions of section 263 on the ground that assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 21. It may also be mentioned that it was also the contention of the assessee that since AO had disallowed deduction under section 80 IB(10) in its entirety, therefore, there is no question of the order being prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In our considered op....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be applicable to assessee. For supporting such proposition Ld. A.R has relied on by the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Manan Corporation vs. CIT (supra). We have carefully gone through the said decision and found that the decision cannot be applied to the case of the assessee. In that case the deduction under section 80 IB(10) was disallowed on account of non-fulfillment of condition laid down in clause (d) of section 80 IB(10). Clause (d) provides that the built up area of the shops and other commercial establishments included in the housing project should not exceed 3% (w.e.f. 1/4/2005) of the aggregate built up area of housing project or 5000 sq.ft, whichever is higher,(2000 sq.ft) whichever is less from 1/1/2010. The commercial area built up by the assessee in that case was found to be excessive in violation of clause (d). Therefore, deduction was denied by the Department. Issue regarding completion of project within the time was never before Hon'ble Court. It was found that commercial area built up by the assessee was within the norms of Municipal law and ceiling of commercial area imposed by the clause (d) was only brought w.e.f. 1.4.2005. It was he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efeat the very purpose of the statute as in absence of condition regarding completion of building upto a specified period will make the object of statute itself as futile. 25. As per law explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, 120 ITR 921 (SC), the cardinal principle of tax law is that the law to be applied is that in force in assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. On that principle, it was observed that it is abundantly clear that when the assessment for assessment year 1960-61 is to be made and section 24(2) is invoked, it is section 24(2) as in force in that assessment year which to be applied. That is the provision amended by Finance (No.2) Act 1957. There was no question of the assessee possessing any vested right under the law as it stood before amendment. In that case in A.Y 1959-60 the set off of unabsorbed business loss in relation to A.Y 1949-50 and A.Y.1950-51 was granted and remaining unabsorbed loss was carried forward. In A.Y 1960-61 the year which was under consideration, the assessee claimed that unabsorbed loss should be carried forward and set off against business incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied forward from year to year. Thereafter, Finance (No. 2) Act of 1957 amended s. 24(2)(iii) w.e.f. 1St April, 1957, and in consequence an unabsorbed loss could not now be carried forward for more than eight years. 3. The assessee claims a vested right under s. 24(2)(iii), as it stood before its amendment in 1957, to have the unabsorbed loss of 1950-51 carried forward from year to year until the loss is completely absorbed. The claim is based on a misconception of the fundamental basis underlying every income- tax assessment. It is a cardinal principle of the tax law that the law to be applied is that in force in assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication [CIT vs. Isthmian Steamship Lines (1951) 20 ITR 572 (SC) : TC27R.640 and Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (1966) 60 ITR 262 (SC): TC38R.479J. On that principle, it is abundantly clear that when an assessment for the asst. yr. 1960-61 is to be made and s. 24(2) is invoked, it is s. 24(2) as in force in that assessment year which has to be applied. That is the provision as amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1957. There is no question of the assessee possessing any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etion certificate. Reliance placed by the assessee on various decisions on this issue is again misplaced. In the case of CIT vs. Vandana Properties (supra) there is no issue regarding completion of the housing project. In the case of Saroj Sales Organization vs. ITO (supra) it was found as a matter of fact that assessee had applied for completion certificate on 17/8/2004 but the same was not received till the date of filing the return. However, the said certificate was issued on 20/12/2008; therefore, it was held that the condition regarding completion was fulfilled. However, in the present case completion certificate has not been issued even till date. In the case of DCIT vs. Brigade Enterprises (P) Ltd.,(supra) the issue was only that whether two projects were one or they were different and on the facts of the case it was held that two projects were different. Therefore, the decision is not applicable to the facts of the case. In the case of Satish Vora & Associates(supra), it was found that Pune Municipal Corporation(PMC) does not issue occupancy certificate generally in time and keeping in view such position a legislative provision was introduced, according to which 21 days tim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we have already observed that we are considering the issue regarding the applicability or otherwise of section 263. Therefore, this contention has little relevance to decide the present appeal because AO has been directed by Ld. CIT to reconsider the claim after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of hearing. 28. There is also no force in the contention of the assessee that the findings of Ld. CIT in the assessment order are different from the show cause notice issued in this regard. No such discrepancy has been pointed out during the course of hearing. This contention is raised on the ground that the issuance of show cause notice by Ld. CIT is factually incorrect as in the written submission furnished to AO vide letter dated 14/11/2009 the criteria regarding fulfillment of the aforementioned condition was fully brought out. We have carefully gone through the show cause notice and the reply referred to by the Ld. A.R. Nowhere in the reply it has been submitted that assessee has complied with the condition laid down in Explanation (ii) to section 80 IB(10). It was only stated that on completion of G-Wing as it was the last wing the MCGM authority has mentioned the word "p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amchand Jain 245 ITR 838 (Del) have enumerated these principles in para 5 of that decision, wherein their Lordship have observed that principle relating to doctrine of merger have been elaborated in various judgments. Principles culled out from those decisions are as follows: "(i) the application of the doctrine of merger cannot be rendered inapplicable by drawing a distinction between an application for revision and an appeal; (ii) the application of the doctrine of merger depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order in each case and on the scope of the statutory provisions conferring the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of rigid and universal application. Whether there is fusion or merger of the order of the inferior Tribunal into an order by a superior Tribunal shall have to be determined by finding out the subject-matter of appellate or revisional order and the scope of the appeal or revision contemplated by the particular statute; (iii) ordinarily, a judgment pronounced in appellate or revisional jurisdiction after issuing a notice of hearing to both the parties would re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... him will disentitle the Commissioner to invoke section 263. The provisions of section 263 clearly speaks of the words "considered" and "decided" in such appeal. The issue in the present case is that whether or not assessee has completed its project as per Explanation (ii) of section 80 IB(10). Elaborate discussion has already been made in respect of the assessment order and it has been found that the issue regarding fulfillment of condition laid down in Explanation (ii) of section 80 IB(10) was never considered by the AO and that was also not subject matter of appeal. The deduction was denied by the AO simply for the reason that the assessee did not fulfill the condition regarding commencement of the project after 1/10/1998. According to A.O, the assessee did not fulfill the primary condition of commencement of project after 1-10-1998; therefore, he did not go into the question regarding completion of the project which could be considered to be complete only on furnishing of the completion certificate by the local authority. Nowhere in the submissions made before AO or in the order it has been submitted or considered that issue of part commencement certificate by the local authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A careful perusal of the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) will reveal that neither he has applied his mind on the fulfillment of condition laid down in Explanation (ii) section 80 IB(10) and nor it was the case of the assessee that it has fulfilled the other condition/ conditions regarding completion of project as this was never the issue which was either raised by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) nor it can be said that Ld. CIT(A) has considered and decided this issue. The language of section 263, clause (c) is very clear and unambiguous. The restriction is for the matters which have been "considered" and "decided" in the appeal. On perusal of order of Ld. CIT(A) can it be said by any stretch of imagination that he has considered and decided the issue regarding admissibility of the deduction under section 80 IB(10) on the ground of completion of the project which was to be considered as complete only on furnishing completion certificate to be issued by the local authority under Explanation (ii). Therefore, it can be said that the issue regarding completion of project was never considered and decided by the Ld. CIT(A). It can also not be said that if an assessee has not fulfilled the cond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Therefore, assessee cannot derive any help from this decision. (iv) CIT vs. Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd.(supra) - In the said case their Lordship of Hon'ble High Court have noted that the Tribunal had found that CIT(A) had considered the issue regarding deduction under section 80J in para-8 of the appellate order. Therefore, there was a merger. However, the facts of the present case are different from the facts of that case as the issue regarding completion of the project was never considered by the CIT(A). (v) CIT vs. Nirma Chemcials Works P. Ltd.(supra) - In the said case their Lordship have observed that the question regarding grant of deduction under section 80I was considered by the AO and it was allowed in part. When the matter was carried before CIT(A), the CIT(A) was duty bound to examine whether the claim made by the assessee was in accordance with provisions of sub-section (2) of section 80I of the Act. The requirement of fulfillment of conditions stipulated by sub-section (2) of section 80I of the Act was therefore, very much subject matter of appeal in relation to income from warehousing which was disallowed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be made to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ratilal Bacharilal & Sons, 282 ITR 457, wherein total deduction of Rs.8,90,967/- was claimed by the assessee under section 35B. However, AO allowed a sum of Rs.5,63,350/-. The assessee went in appeal against part disallowance of section 35B. CIT invoked section 263 on the allowed part of deduction under section 35B and it was held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court that there was no merger to the extent the deduction was allowed by the AO as the same was not subject matter of appeal. (b) In the case of CIT vs. Panna Knitting Industries, 253 ITR 656(Guj), deduction under section 35B was allowed in respect of three items and disallowed on fourth item. The assessee went in appeal before CIT(A) who confirmed the order of ITO. It was held that CIT had jurisdiction to pass order under section 263 vis-à-vis weighted deduction allowed by ITO as according to High Court CIT is empowered to exercise revisional authority in respect of matters which have escaped the attention of Appellate Authority. (c) In the case of Bundy Tubing India Ltd. vs. CIT, 253 ITR 286(Mad), section 263 was in....