2017 (3) TMI 1758

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The order of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai dated 30.06.2016 in I.T.A.No.41/CIT(A)-2/2013-14 for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance of the claim for deduction u/s.80 lB (10) of the Act on the wrong presumption of the sale/allotment of two flats to one person so as to deny the full deduction claimed on the further presumption of the noncompliance of one of the conditions prescribed in the said section without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the reference to the amended provisions namely explanations (f) in the said section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the Impugned Order and any order passed in violation of the principles natural justice would be nullity in law. 9. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing. 2.0 Ground Nos.1 & 9 are general in nature which do not require specific adjudication. 3.0 Ground Nos.2 to 6 are related to the deduction u/s.80 IB (10) of Income Tax Act (in short 'the Act'). During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has claimed the deduction of Rs. 5,86,13,568/- u/s.80 IB (10) of the Act. The assessee sold two flats to Shri M.Gandhi and Shri Shivakumar in violation of sub clause (f) of explanation to Sec.80 IB (10) of the Act. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AY were completed and allowed the deduction u/s.80 IB. The Ld.AR of the assessee argued that the provisions of Sub-clause (e) & (f) of Explanation to section 80 IB (10) was introduced by the Finance Act 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 and the same is not applicable for the flats sold prior to the effective date. The Ld.AR argued that in the instant case, the Flats were sold in 2008 and registered in favour of the beneficiaries in 2008 before introduction of Sub-clause (e) & (f) of Explanation to Sub-Sec.10 of section 80 IB of the Act and hence, the same is not applicable in the case of the assessee and the AO erred in disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee. On the other hand, the Ld.DR relied on the lower authorities orders. 4.0 We hea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee relied on the discussion of this Tribunal ITAT 'B' Bench, Chennai in the case of ACIT v. M/s.Elegant Estates in ITA Nos.224 & 225/Mds/2016 & CO Nos.51 & 52/Mds/2016 on similar issue which was held in favour of the assessee. For ready reference, we extract the relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT as under: "we have considered that rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The claim of deduction u/s. 80 IB (10) of the Act was rejected by the AO for both the AYs on the ground that flat Nos. 403 and 404 were sold to the same persons, namely, Smt. Latha Ramachndran and Shri K. Ramachandran. The very same issue, namely, sale of flats to Smt. Latha Ramachandran and....