TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 923
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess of organizer and developer for development and construction of residential housing project. It has filed its return of income on 31.10.2007 declaring NIL income after claiming deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act at Rs. 1,03,17,545/-. The ld.AO has passed an assessment order under section 143(3) on 21.12.2009. He declined claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Dissatisfied with the assessment order the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by way of impugned order on 30.9.2013. The partner had received order dated 27.9.2013 signed by the ITO, Ward- 9(2), Ahmedabad along with copy of notice under section 226(3) dated 20.9.2013 issued to the Union Bank of India, stating the bank regarding outstanding demand of Rs. 72,91,820/-. Copies of these notices are being annexed in the paper book filed by the assessee. The deponent further deposed that after receipt of this notice, he immediately approached his Chartered Accountant who was conducting proceeding before the ld.CIT(A). It came to the notice of the deponent that the CA had received copy of the CIT(A)'s order and it was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder on 28.10.2010 upon the CA. It has been further pleaded that the tax consultant had handed over the copy of the CIT(A)'s order in the month of January, 2011 to one Shri Ashwinbhai Bhavsar who was an accountant with the assessee firm. Shri Ashwinbhai Bhavsar has left job in the month of February, 2011 and due to this reason, appeal could not be filed within time. 3. Whether Shri Ashwinbhai Bhavsar has ever worked with the assessee or not, there is no evidence in support of this pleading. Similarly, there is no material placed on record by the assessee to demonstrate that Shri Ashwinbhai Bhavsar has left job in February, 2011. During the course of hearing, when we faced with this situation, we direct the ld.counsel for the assessee to produce attendance register, if any, salary register or appointment letter in favour of Shri Ashwinbhai Bhavsar or any other evidence exhibiting the fact that Shri Ashwinbhai Bhavsar had ever worked with the assessee-firm and has left the job in the month of February, 2011. The ld.counsel shall produce these evidences before next date of hearing with advance copies to the ld.DR. Copy of this order sheet be supplied to both the parties. 4. Hear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ld.CIT(A). According to the ld.DR, it was a severe negligence at the end of the assessee in conducting its income-tax proceedings, and therefore, does not entitle for any sympathetic consideration with regard to the condonation of delay. 7. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. As observed earlier, the assessee has made a claim under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 80IB(10) was incorporated in the statute with an intention to give encouragement to provide housing units in urban and semi-urban areas, where there is perennial and acute shortage of housing, particularly, for middle income group citizens. To ensure that benefit reach to the people, certain conditions were provided in sub-section (10). The assessee has no taxable income, if deduction under section 80IB(10) was allowed to the assessee. The question is whether in this given situation, the assessee could afford to act negligently. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that a possible human negligence will put the assessee with tax liability of more than Rs. 78 lakhs including interest. We have also been informed that the department has imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment. This claim, in our opinion, which was admissible to the assessee on account of incentive provisions, would burden it with a huge tax liability. Punishment in the shape of this tax liability, if weighed with negligence, if accepted for argument's sake, then, this punishment is disproportionate to the negligence. This also one of the reasons weighed in our mind for condoning the delay. Apart from this, we find that the issue on merit was interpreted by the AO against the assessee, because at that point of time, position of law was not clear on this aspect. This line of reasoning adopted by the AO did not get approval of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. We will be dealing with this issue on merit in the subsequent paragraph. But a subsequent development in law made a more stronger case in favour of the assessee on merit. Therefore, we are of the view that even if a negligence committed by the accountant is taken as human negligence, then also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y us making the payment to the society from the fund of the partnership fund. There is direct nexus between the money consideration and the fund. The land purchase consideration is moved from our firm to the original landlord through the society. j) The land document deed and its registration formalities were completed by us. The initial banakhat payment for land purchase is also paid by our firm. The society was not having any resource of any money for paying purchase consideration The requirement of conversion of agricultural into non-agricultural land property is also satisfied by our efforts and by our direct direction. k) The entire construction material and labour is in our firm's name and all administrative expense for putting the housing construction is controlled, finance by us. The society has not come into picture at, .any stage in this respect. Our firm has shoulder all responsibilities as regards material, labour Manpower, electricity, architect, engineers, design, advertisement and other, requirement in connection with successful completion of the development of housing project and construction. The other conditions also amply proves that we have acted as on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per appellant's own submission dated 2.12.2010 it had not claimed 80IB(10) in any earlier year and in AY 2007-08 that is the year under consideration the claim was made for the first time. It is interesting to note that Development permission dated 22.10.2001 enclosed as Annexure-3 of this order is the development permission for all types of residential units listed in it which includes 14 and 7 shops as well. This development permission runs into 2 pages because of the lengthy tables. Thus development permission for the entire project - Nandi Gram - was taken in one instance. Though asked to furnish BU permission of 7 shops the appellant did not and BU permission dated 23.3.2007 was furnished which is for 158 residential unit and well as for 14 shops. The learned AR could not inform anything though asked about the other 7 shops. In the case of the appellant the built-up area of 14 shops whose BU permission dated 23.3.2007 (enclosed as Annexure 4 of this order) has been granted along with that of residential units constructed in Sector 4 and 5 is 3329.144 sq.ft (As 1 sq.mtre = 10.76 sq.ft built-up area of 14 shops comes to 3329.144 sq.ft.(309.40 sq.mtrs X 10.76 Sq.ft.) t....