TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1031
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cal action initiating reopening proceedings thereby disallowing Section 80IB(10) deduction of Rs. 4,04,147/- and Rs. 1,15,370/-; respectively, in proceedings u/s. 144 r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act". Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. Learned counsel representing assessee first of all submits that he does not wish to press for former identical ground challenging validity of reopening in both the impugned assessment years. The said former legal ground is accordingly rejected as not pressed. 3. We come to latter identical issue on merits pertaining to Section 80IB(10) deduction claimed at assessee's behest as declined in both the lower proceedings. The project in question is in the name and style of "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITAT, 'B' Bench, Ahmedabad who while disposing the appeal in ITA No. 372/Ahd/2009 dated 22/7/2011 for AY 2005-06 discussed the issue in detail regarding allowability of claim of the assessee restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication with the following directions: "7, After hearing both the parties and perusing the record and also the assessment order for the assessment order 2004-05, it is not dear whether the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB(10) during the AT 2004-05 was in respect of the same project- The matter is restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication to give the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate his claim before the A.O." The AO has relied on the order passed for AY ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been fully satisfied, in return of income we enclosed copy of audit report and form 10CCB as per provision. 5) it is note worthy the instant case has been restored back by hon'ble ITAT for the A.Y. 2005-06, with clear direction to verify whether the project is same or not as claimed in earlier years. The ld. A.O. had ignored the cogent evidences / audited books of account and clear direction given by the ITAT and reopened the ease on mistake of agency of state government with the above set of the facts, we would like to submit as under. Ground of Appeal no.1 "The Ld.A.O. has erred on facts and in laws in disallowing the claim under the provision of section 80IB(10) of the act; where the requisite conditions have been fully satis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection from 2002 to 2007 and conjoin reading of aforesaid evidences clearly show the project is one only. The hon'ble ITAT has clearly directed that the ld.AO is to verify the claim has been for the same project or not wide para -7 of said order, which reproduced hereunder. "After hearing both the parties, and perusing the record and also the assessment order for the A.Y. 2004-05, it is not dear whether the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB(10) during the A.Y. 2004-05 was in respect of the same project." Further, the other contemporaneous evidences like as agreement entered into at initial stage with the members (pg-39 to 45) and they formed the NIC (The Shalin co-op, hous. service soc. Ltd) for the proper administration on gettin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Nov.2007. It appears the latter pad used, seal pressed and signed by the existing sarpanch clearly show the signing person is not much educated and aware of such works, thus the certificate received from the state agency is not bogus as held by the ld.AO in body of order. The ld. AO had misinterpret whole issue and draft very lengthy assessment order which contain more than 18 pages. In any case the ld.AO could have informed the concerned higher authority in this regard. The ld.AO should ask for produce other government agency proof in regard to completion of project. Considering above cogent evidences, it is ample clear the housing project completed well before the stipulated time limit, the other conditions have been also fulfil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(10) of I. T. Act. The AO in the assessment order has mentioned that CIT(A) had also confirmed the disallowance as the appellant failed to substantiate the completion of the project. The appellant has failed to substantiate with evidences regarding the completion of project, which is one of the conditions to be fulfilled for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10). Further, AO has not accepted the claim of the appellant that as claim was allowed in AY 2004-05, it should be allowed in AY 2005-06 was also not allowed by the AO since the appellant had argued before the Hon'ble ITAT that such claim is allowed in AY 2004-05 in respect of the same project. The AO held that proceedings for each assessment year is a separate proceedings. I find that AO....