TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 1123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ft. The area of the amenity shopping was stated to be 9472.48 sq.ft. The profits from the project have been offered on the project completion basis. The completion certificate for the project has been obtained in piece-mill for the part of the project. However, the completion certificate for the entire project has not been obtained by the assessee from Pune Municipal Corporation. During the year under consideration the assessee had shown profit of Rs. 64,61,135/- which has been claimed as exempt u/s.80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. 2.1 The Assessing Officer analysed the provisions of section 80IB(10) and noted that the assessee has not fulfilled two conditions, i.e. (1) the area of the shopping is exceeding 2000 sq.ft. and (2) the assessee did not produce the completion certificate from Pune Municipal Corporation. The Assessing Officer, therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the claim of exemption u/s.80IB(10) should not be disallowed. The assessee made elaborate written submission which has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer from pages 3 to 17 of the assessment order. It was submitted that the assessee is an AOP constituted by the following members : (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 4 vide commencement certificate no. 4410 dated 6th March 2000. Project on plot no. 4 hereinafter referred to as "Project B" consisted of 3 buildings namely Gold (G), Crown (H), & Kangan (I+K). The project consisted of 249 flats each admeasuring less than 1500 sq. ft built up as detailed below Name of the Buildings Residential Flats Shops G = GOLD 101 0 H =CROWN 68 0 I+K = KANGAN 80 0 TOTAL 249 0 Project B does not include any shop or other commercial establishment. 2.5 The assessee claimed the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the I. T. Act for the assessment years 2001-02, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 in respect of both the housing projects treating them as one project under mistaken belief of the fact that it is constructing one project. 2.6 Assessments of income for the assessment year 2001-02, 2004- 05, 2005-06 are completed under section 143(3) of the I. T. Act allowing the deduction as claimed by the assessee. 2.7 It was submitted that : a. there are actually two projects i.e. Project A on Plot 3 and Project B on Plot No 4 in existence, b. The project A includes shops/commercial area whereas t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n raised by Urban Land Ceiling Department the assessee brought to the notice of the AO that it has allotted the built up area of 944 sq. meters as against 942 sq. meter agreed to be allotted for Economic Weaker Section of the society as per section 20 of the ULC Act. i. It was submitted that the assessee has given possession of all flats under consideration before December 2007 in respect of which the completion has not received. Details giving the date of agreement, date of possession, undertaking for maintenance charges payable and MSEB connections (Electricity Meter allotment) were filed before the AO. j. In respect of the non completion of the projects the assessee brought to the notice of the learned assessing officer that the projects under consideration were completed on 4th April 2006 i.e. much before 31st March 2008. However, the local authority, i.e. PMC did not grant the completion certificate as the authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 had objected to PMC for granting completion to the assessee. The entire correspondences between ULC department, Ministry of Urban development, PMC and the assessee were furnished. It was submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee that it is engaged in construction and development of 2 separate and independent projects by observing as under : "3.7 I have also perused the additional evidence filed by the appellant being the certificate of PMC dated 13.11.2009, certifying that both the proposals were separate, and separately approved and sanctioned vide different commencement certificates. Considering the different commencement certificates for the two projects dated 11.01.99 and 06.03.2000, they are seen to be separated by time and space since there was also a road passing in between these two, along with the revised form no. 10CCB furnished as additional evidence, it is held that the projects 'A' and 'B' were two different projects in the case of the appellant. Ground no. 1 is, therefore, held to be allowed." 4.2 The revenue is not in appeal before us against the above observation of the Ld.CIT(A). 4.3 However, so far as the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) is concerned he rejected the claim of the assessee on account of the following : "a. The Completion Certificate dated 30th March 2010 issued by PMC even though with reference to the date of application 4th ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A). 6. So far as the issue raised by the Ld.CIT(A) that even though the project is completed before May 2006 but the assessee has not obtained the completion certificate before 31-03-2008 is concerned the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the condition of obtaining completion certificate of project is not mandatory and what is important is substantial compliance which needs to be established. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tarnetar Corproation in Tax Appeal No.1241/PN/2001 reported in 26 Taxmann.com 180 he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that every condition (condition as to the completion before prescribed date) of the statute cannot be seen as mandatory if the substantial compliance thereof is established on record. In a given case, the court may take a view that minor deviations thereof would not vitiate the very purpose for which the deduction has been made available. Referring to the said decision he submitted that in the said case the completion was required to be obtained before 31-03-2008. The assessee had completed the project....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MC Communicated the objection to the assessee vide letter dated 26th April 2006 which was served on the Architect of the assessee on or about 4th or 5th May i.e. beyond a period of 21 days, therefore, according to Rule 7.7 of D. C. Rules, Pune the completion certificate is deemed to have been granted by PMC from the date of application especially in the light of the fact that the assessee had constructed building strictly in accordance with building plan approved by PMC and the local authority has not raised any objection as to violation of building plans. For this proposition he relied on the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Satish Bora and Associates Vs ACIT ITA No 713 & 714/PN/2010. 6.4 Referring to Page 11 of the Paper Book he submitted that the assessee submitted Occupancy Certificate in respect of project on Plot No 3 (Project A) before the Hon'ble CIT(A) as an additional evidence during the course of appeal proceedings. PMC issued certificate on 31st March 2010 with reference to application dated 4th April 2006 in respect of building D-1, building D-2, Building E-2, building E-3 and building E-4. 6.5 The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was within its power. The assessee cannot be panelized for something which is beyond its ability. For this proposition he relied on the decision of ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Ramsukh Properties Vs DCIT Cir 2 Pune vide ITA No 84/PN/2011. 8. As regards commercial area included in project on Plot No.3 (Project A) he submitted that in project on the plot no 3 (Project A) the assessee had constructed shops admeasuring about 9472 Square Feet out of the aggregate built up area 1,16,433 square feet. The commercial built up area is 8.37% of the aggregate built up area. Referring to the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Brahma Associates 122 TTJ 433 (Pune) which has since been confirmed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported in 333 ITR 289 (Bom.) he submitted that the housing project approved before 31st March 2005 can include commercial area. 8.1 He submitted that the CIT(A) disallowed the claim of deduction on the ground that the Special Bench has examined the issue for assessment year 2003-04 and the position would be different w.e.f. AY 2005-06. Therefore, the ratio of Brahma Associates will not be applicable for AY 2005-06 and subsequent years. 8.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in excess of 5% or 2000 sq.ft. whichever is less, therefore, the assessee has violated the provisions of section 80IB(10) and, therefore, is not entitled to deduction u/s.80IB(10). The Ld. Departmental Representative also relied on the following decisions : 1. M/s. Sainath Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA Nos. 299- 300/Hyd/2012 order dated 08-02-2012 for A.Y. 2005-06/2006-07. 2. ITO Vs. M/s. Everest Home Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.7021/M/2008 order dated 12-09-2012 for A.Y. 2006-07. 10. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his rejoinder submitted that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Tarnetar Corporation has held that every statute cannot be seen as mandatory and if substantial compliance thereof is established on record, in a given case, the court may take a view that minor deviation thereof would vitiate the very purpose for which the deduction was made available. Referring to the decision in the case of Sainath Estates (P) Ltd. relied on by Ld. Departmental Representative he submitted that it was not clear if the project of the assessee was completed or not. However, in the instant case the project was complete and the assessee has appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y no.20/2 were amalgamated with plot no. 26 to 32 and plot no. 48 to 55 of survey no. 19/1 + 20/1, Khondwa, Pune which were not belonging to the assessee, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the correspondence between PMC and the owner of the adjoining plot i.e. plot no. 26 to 32 and plot no, 48 to 55 of survey no, 19/1 +20/1, Khondwa, Pune. The correspondence was for the period from the year 1995 to 1999 concerning the unauthorized construction done by the said adjoining plot owner. It was further explained during assessment proceedings that the adjoining plot owner did not leave the side margin and front and back margin and therefore, the PMC proposed to demolish the construction on the adjoining plot. Therefore, there was issue regarding the boundaries of the plot of the assessee and the adjoining owner and it would have created further disputes delaying the project of the appellant. In order to resolve the matter amicably the assessee and the adjoining plot owner had amalgamated both the plots. 12.1 The assessee further demonstrated that even after the amalgamation the FSI in respect of plot no. 3 and plot no.4 was sanctioned with reference to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the AO in the instant case denied the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) on the ground that (a) the assessee has not obtained the completion certificate on or before 31-03-2008 (b) that the project includes shops and other commercial areas in excess of the prescribed limit and (c) that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.80IB(10) since A.Y. 2001-02 and the assessee is showing the entire project as a single project. We find the Ld.CIT(A), on the basis of the additional evidences filed before him and the remand report obtained from the AO, held that the projects (A) and (B) undertaken by the assessee are two different projects. The relevant observations of the Ld.CIT(A) are already reproduced at para 4.1 of the impugned order. The revenue is not in appeal before us on this issue. Therefore, this issue on which the AO has denied the deduction is not relevant. 14. However, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO in denying the claim of deduction on the other reasons stated by the AO, i.e. (a) the completion certificate has not been obtained on or before 31-03-2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lding G and H of Project B are already availed and there is no dispute. Further, the PMC issued completion certificate on 31-03-2010 with reference to application dated 04-04-2006 in respect of building D1, building D2, building E2, building E3 and building E4. Therefore, the completion certificate in respect of Building D1, D2, E2, E3 & E4 of building A relates back to the application dated 04-04-2006. 14.3 We find merit in the above submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that the assessee has not applied to the Municipal Corporation for issue of completion certificate on 04-04-2006 for Project A and building I & K of Project B. It is also not in dispute that the completion certificate issued by the PMC dated 31-03-2010 for Buildings of Project A is not with reference to application dated 04-04- 2006. Therefore, in our opinion, the completion certificate issued on 31-03- 2010 with reference to the application dated 04-04-2006 for Project A relates back to the date of application, i.e. 04-04-2006. 14.4 The second issue on which the Ld.CIT(A) completed the denial of deduction u/s.80IB(10) is that nothing was explained about Proj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) as well as before us that the assessee is all along claiming that the project was complete in the year 2006, the purchasers have been given possession of the flats, they have undertaken for the maintenance charges and have started paying electricity charges etc. Further, the PMC has not issued any rejection letter within 21 days from the date of submission of the completion certificate which was submitted on 04-04-2006. The Revenue has not disputed the above facts. 14.7 We find the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tarnetar Corporation (Supra) has held as under : "5. We have perused the detailed discussion of the CIT (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal on the issue. In particular, the Tribunal noted that the construction was completed in 2006. Application for BU permission to the Municipal authorities was filed on 15.2.2006 which was rejected on 1.7.06. Several residential units were occupied since the same was done without necessary permission. The assessee had also paid penalty and got such occupation regularized. Several tenements were sold long before the last date. 6. In the present case, therefore, the fact that the assessee had completed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... housing project was approved vide commencement certificate No.3837/04 dated 13.01.2005 out of which completion certificate was obtained and furnished before the Assessing Officer for 173 out of 205 flats. Same was rejected by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The request for granting whole deduction in respect of whole project has rightly been rejected because deduction u/s.80IB(10) could not be granted to assessee on incomplete construction at relevant point of time. Regarding proportionate deduction in respect of 173 of 205 flats of project completed as recognized by local authority, i.e., PMC in its completion certificate No.BCO/03/01333 dated 31.03.2008, the Ld. Authorised Representative heavily relied on decision of Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. (supra), Brigade Enterprises P. Ltd. (supra), AIR Developer (supra), Sheth Developers (supra) and also G.V.Corporation (supra), wherein deduction u/s.80IB(10) was denied as size of some of the residential units exceeded prescribed limit as laid down u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. Above mentioned decisions are applicable in their own sphere, i.e. on point of excess area of some of the flats which hold good in its ow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....away by strict provisions of statute. The taxing statute granting incentives for promotion of growth and development should be construed liberally and that provision for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally. At the same time, restriction thereon too has to be construed strictly so as to advance the object of provision and not to frustrate the same. The provisions of taxing statute should be construed harmoniously with the object of statue to effectuate the legislative intention. In view of above facts and circumstances, we hold that assessee is entitled for benefit u/s.80IB(10) of the Act in respect of 173 flats completed before prescribed limit. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly." 14.10 We find the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Runwal Multihousing Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has observed as under : "18. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find in the instant case the assessee obtained the permission for construction of buildings A, B, C, D, E, F and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and the area used so is above 1 acre. Q.9. If the construction is completed before 31st March 2008, why you have not received Completion Certificate from PMC for all buildings in Runwal Paradise Project as on today? Ans. The Completion Certificate are deemed received since we have applied for the same, but since the matter is subjudice the PMC is not able to grant the Completion Certificate. The very local authority which is responsible for granting the Completion Certificate has a legal problem which is subjudice. Q.10. As stated answering the Question No.9, please state when you have applied for Completion Certificate in respect of Runwal Paradise Project and also submit the relevant applications? Ans. We have applied for Completion Certificate for the entire project. We are submitting herewith the application for Completion Certificate dated 22-01- 2004vide Commencement Certificate No.1372 dated 10-01-2002 as per Annexure "C". The copies of any further application, if any, we will submit the same on 2nd June 2008. Q.12. As per revised building layout sanctioned on 10-01-2003, you got approval for construction of buildings A to F and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that the date of completion of construction of 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. In the present case, it has been issued on 5-5-2008 and hence the case set up by the Revenue that the completion is beyond the mandated date of 31-3- 2008. In this background, we find that there is no dispute that the assessee applied for obtaining the completion certificate in respect of building 'E' on 12-3- 2008. From the discussion made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, wherein the factual assertions of the assessee have been reproduced, it is quite evident that the assessee asserted that before 31-3-2008, the construction of building was complete in all respects; that electrical connection was provided to each flat owner; road was complete; water and drainage connection was available; sewerage system was operating; club house was functional; etc. The assessee also pointed out that the local authority had also initiated property tax assessments for each of the flats and the same demonstrated that all the flats in the building were complete. In fact, in para ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the completion of the project. The said certificate/intimation was accepted by the local authority without any amendments or objections. Local authority has not raised any queries on the quality construction of the building or the completion of the same as per the plans approved by such authority. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the delay in obtaining the completion certificate on 10-10-2008 is certainly not attributable to the assessee and obtaining the said certificate before 31-3-2008 is beyond the control of the assessee. Assessee's job includes the completion of the building in accordance with the approved plans and intimation of the same to the local authority by way of filing the requisite forms together with the completion certificate given by the Architect, the specialist in the matter and the assessee has done his job scrupulously in this case. However, the local authority has neither objected to the said application of the assessee and the Architect by raising any objections for accepted by issue of said completion certificate till 10-10-2008. Therefore, the delay in grant of the said certificate is certainly not attributable to the assessee. Therefore, in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is issued on 5-5-2008 i.e. beyond the stipulated date of 31-3-2008. The moot question is in case the condition of completion construction contained in the substantive section 80-0IB(10)(a)(i) is factually found to be complied with, can the contents of the Explanation clause (ii) thereof, alter the situation? Can an Explanation appended to a section, enlarge the scope of the main section so as to make it more onerous for a tax- payer? Be that as it may, we do not dwell on this aspect any further, as the assessee has been found to be eligible for necessary relief because the condition prescribed in section 80-IB(10)(a)(i) of the Act has been complied with in view of the stated precedents. We therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this aspect and hold that the assessee cannot be denied the claim of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) on the strength of non-issuance of the completion certificate for building 'E' by the Pune Municipal Corporation before 31-3-2008, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case." 20.2 We find the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT Vs. Tarnetar Corporation (Supra) has held as under : "With respect to the second ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 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 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 the some other technical ground. In that view of the matter, granting benefit of deduction cannot be held to be illegal. In the result, the Tax Appeal is dismissed". 20.3. We find the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Samuha Awas Ltd. Vs. ITO vide ITA Nos 945 to 950/PN/2010 order dated 30-08-2011 has held as under : "7. We have considered the above view points of the parties in disputed. We find that it is a fact that the assessee through its architect had filed application with the AMC for issuance of occupancy certificate on 25-3-2008. Requisite fee was also paid by the assessee in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the date of issuance of such Occupancy Certificate alongwith Certified Completion plan as the date of Completion Certificate of the construction for the requirement of Explanation (ii) to Section 80IB(10)(a) of the I.T. Act. 2. Since infact PMC do not issue Occupancy Certificate generally in time and with this understanding the Legislature have also introduced a deeming provision of 21 days to put constraint upon PMC, we after detailed deliberation in precedign paragraphs have come to a conclusion that in case of small objections of PMC raised after expiry of deeming period of 21 days under Rule 7.7 of DC Rules under PMC, the date when the applicant acquired deeming sanction will be treated as the date of Completion (occupancy) Certificate to meet out the requirement of Explanation (ii) to Section 80IB (10)(a) of the Act. We have already discussed hereinabove what would be the small objections. In brief those objections which do not affect the main project and are generally temporary constructions. 20. We thus while setting aside orders of the authorities below direct the A.O to allow the claimed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the I.T. Act 1961 in the assessment ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issuing completion certificate is to see that the unit is habitable in all respects like civic amenities and so on. Even for the sake of argument if the CMDA certificate is to be considered, then in that case, the assessee did apply for the completion certificate to CMDA certificate on 13.3.2006. It is a different matter that CMDA raised certain objections and the matter went upto the Hon'ble High Court also. However, the fact remains that the project was completed much before the due date, may be with certain defects. Also, it has to be noted that the CMDA certificate is dated 13.6.2008, i.e. only two months and thirteen days beyond the due date. It is inconceivable that the type of defects which were pointed out by the CMDA could have been rectified in such a short period. Be that as it may, the Hon'ble High Court also ratified the deviations and directed the CMDA to consider the explanation of the assessee. All these facts go to point that the project was indeed completed before the 31.3.2008. Thus, this ground also has no force to deny the assessee the impugned deduction. " C Extract from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. D.K.Construction vide ITA 243/In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Explanation (ii) of Section 80IB(10)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. What is crucial is date mentioned in the letter so issued certifying completion of the Project. Thus, the date of issue of letter is not important, but the date mentioned in the letter certifying completion of project is important. We, therefore, do not find may merit in the observation of the lower authorities to the effect that the date of completion shall be taken the date on which certificate is physically issued by the Local Authorities." 9. From the above, one this is clear that the date that appear on the Architect's Completion certificate filed before the local authority is a relevant one. In the instant case, the said date is 25-3-2008 and the assessee filed requisite form before the local authorities intimating the completion of the project. The said certificate/ intimation was accepted by the local authority without any amendments or objections. Local authority has not raised any queries on the quality construction of the building or the completion of the same as per the plans approved by such authority. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the delay in obtaining the completion certificate o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c. Assessee's housing project was approved vide commencement certificate No.3837/04 dated 13.01.2005 out of which completion certificate was obtained and furnished before the Assessing Officer for 173 out of 205 flats. Same was rejected by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The request for granting whole deduction in respect of whole project has rightly been rejected because deduction u/s.80IB(10) could not be granted to assessee on incomplete construction at relevant point of time. Regarding proportionate deduction in respect of 173 of 205 flats of project completed as recognized by local authority, i.e., PMC in its completion certificate No.BCO/03/01333 dated 31.03.2008, the Ld. Authorised Representative heavily relied on decision of Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. (supra), Brigade Enterprises P. Ltd. (supra), AIR Developer (supra), Sheth Developers (supra) and also G.V.Corporation (supra), wherein deduction u/s.80IB(10) was denied as size of some of the residential units exceeded prescribed limit as laid down u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. Above mentioned decisions are applicable in their own sphere, i.e. on point of excess area of some of the flats which hold g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be taken away by strict provisions of statute. The taxing statute granting incentives for promotion of growth and development should be construed liberally and that provision for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally. At the same time, restriction thereon too has to be construed strictly so as to advance the object of provision and not to frustrate the same. The provisions of taxing statute should be construed harmoniously with the object of statue to effectuate the legislative intention. In view of above facts and circumstances, we hold that assessee is entitled for benefit u/s.80IB(10) of the Act in respect of 173 flats completed before prescribed limit. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. 7. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off as indicated above." In the light of the above discussion the order of the CIT(A) denying benefit of deduction u/s.80IB(10) for non-receipt of completion certificate is set-aside and the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed." 14.11 In view of the above decisions the first issue on which the Ld.CIT(A) denied the deduction u/s.80IB(10) i.e., the project is not com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment retrospective are absent there is no as explicit and specific wording expressing retrospectivity and even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the same is to be read by implication the same does not appear to be reasonable but, in fact emerges to be harsh and unreasonable when y comes to implementation. 31. Again, as held in case of CIT vs. J.H. Gotia(supra) by the Apex Court such strict construction of the statute if leads to absurd interpretation the same may not subserve the intent and object of legislation. 32. Again, as held in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. Commission of Income- Tax reported in 239 ITR 775, Apex Court with two possibilities of interpretation of a taxing statute, one which is favourable to the assessee should be always preferred. 33. As also laid down in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in 196 ITR 188 (SC), taxing statute granting incentives for promoting economic growth and development should be liberally construed to facilitate and advance the objectives of the provision. 34. Above discussion cumulatively when examined with the objectives and intent it sought to ach....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. So far as the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sainath Estates Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) relied on by the Ld. Departmental Representative is concerned we find the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The assessee could not explain the reason for non issuance of completion certificate by the local authority in the case of Sainath Estates Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). However, in the instant case the completion certificate has been issued on 30-03-2010 with respect to the occupancy certificate issued by the architect on 04-04-2006. Further, the delay in issue of completion certificate was not for completing the project but on technical grounds, i.e. non payment of the compounding fees of Rs. 2,41,865/- for unauthorized constructions which the assessee has denied all along and non allotment of certain built up area to the economically weaker section of the society which the assessee has complied before 31-03- 2008. So far as the decision in the case of Everest Home Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) to the proposition that the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2004 is applicable to A.Y. 2005-06 and....