TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1008
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in relying upon the order of the hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Tarnetar Corporation [2014] 362 ITR 174 (Guj) and holding that approval has been granted at a later date without raising any objection whereas the completion certificate was given by the Municipal Corporation after expiry of five years from the date of approval ?" 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in I. T. A. No. 263 of 2016 may be noticed. The assessee is a builder. During the assessment year under consideration, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80-IB of the Act amounting to Rs. 92,14,936. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had filed completion certificate from the Municipal Town Planner, Municipal Corporation, Patiala dated December 30, 2011 along with a letter written to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Patiala dated March 29, 2010 requesting for completion certificate. It was further noticed that the housing project approved on April 1, 2005 should have been completed within five years from the end of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ads thus : "the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority." It has been categorically recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the assessee applied for completion certificate along with the architect's certificate in the prescribed form on March 29, 2010, i.e., within the stipulated period of five years as prescribed under section 80- IB(10) of the Act. The Assessing Officer in his report submitted that the explanation of the assessee was plausible with respect to procedural delay at the end of the Municipal authorities. The assessee also referred to the possession certificate issued to the flat owners up to March 31, 2010, registered sale deeds, no objection certificate from fire safety officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, etc. Further, the Municipal Corporation Patiala had also accepted that the approval was granted on the basis of application filed by the assessee on March 29, 2010 and the delay in issuing completion certificate was on account of various stages involved in the process. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e end of the Municipal authorities. Further, the appellant has submitted that the completion certificate issued clearly refers to the request letter of the appellant dated March 29, 2010, and that the completion certificate was issued with reference to the appellant's application dated March 29, 2010. There is no mention of any defect or discrepancy in the project on record. The appellant has also referred to the possession certificate issued to the flat owners up to March 31, 2010, the registered sale deeds, no objection certificate from the Fire Safety Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, etc. Permanent Electricity connection has been given by the Punjab State Electricity Board in the names of the respective buyers before March 31, 2010. Further the approving authority, i.e., Municipal Corporation, Patiala has also accepted that the approval was granted on the basis of an application filed by the appellant on March 29, 2010 and the delay in issuing completion certificate is because of the various stages involved in the process. The delay in issuance of completion certificate is beyond the control of the appellant and is not attributable to him. Thus from the submission of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....links the completion of the construction to the BU permission being granted by the local authority. However, not every condition of the statute can be seen as mandatory. If substantial compliance thereof is established on record, in a given case, the court may take the view that minor deviation thereof would not vitiate the very purpose for which the deduction was being made available. In the present case, the facts are peculiar. The assessee had not only completed the construction two years before the final date and had applied for BU permission. Such BU permission was not rejected on the ground that construction was not completed but on some other technical ground. In that view of the matter granting the benefit of deduction cannot be held to be illegal.' 9. The facts of the present case are on a strong footing, in the sense that the approval has not been refused to it and in fact has been granted to it on a later date, that too without raising any objection. Since the facts are the same, respectfully following the order of the hon'ble High Court, we confirm the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)." 8. Adverting to the interpreta....