(cid:1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM (Assessment Year: 2020-21)

M/s. Nahar Builders Limited, Office of PCIT, B-1, Mahalaxmi Chambers, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs.

Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai- 400026 PAN: AADCN8065A (Appellant) : (Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR Respondent by : Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27.04.2026

O R D E R

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [‘Ld. PCIT’ for short] passed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short)

2020-21.

2. It is observed that the present appeal is time barred by 14 days for which the assessee has filed an application for condoning the delay along with an affidavit. On perusal of the same, we deem it fit to hold that the assessee had “sufficient cause” for the said delay.

Delay is hereby condoned.

3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant case and under law, Ld. CIT erred in passing order u/s 263 of the Act without appreciating that order of AO was passed making extensive inquiries, verification allowing relief u/s 80IB(10) taking into account judicial decisions of higher authorities.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant case and under Law, the Ld. CIT erred in framing the order u/s 263 without appreciating the fact that appellant's case is squarely covered by judicial decisions of Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case with exact similar facts for A.Y. 2008-09 to Α.Υ. 2017-18 deciding the claim on merits allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) for Α.Υ. 2008-09 to A.Y. 2017-18 (10 years in total)

3. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant case and under law, Ld. CIT ought to have appreciated the following:

(a) The Ld. AO completed the proceedings u/s 143(3) allowing the claim after thorough application of mind on claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10)

(b) The Ld. AO considered the binding judicial decisions of appellant's own case for 10 years duly passed and completed by the Final Fact finding authority on merits of claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10)

(c) Mere filing of an appeal before the High court by the Department with pre- admission stage shall not render all orders of Higher Authority infructuous as the same was adjudicated by co-ordinate bench of ITAT while passing orders for A.Υ.

2013-14 to A.Y. 2017-18 The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, and/or withdraw any of the grounds appeal at the time of hearing.”

4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of builders and development of property. The assessee had filed its return of income for the year under consideration dated 10.02.2021 declaring total income at Rs.10,54,48,810/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the following reasons and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon the assessee:

“i. High ratio of refund to TDS ii. Large "any other amount allowable as deduction" claimed in Schedule BP of return iii) Large deduction claimed under section 801/805A/801B/801C as compared to Turnover iv) Deduction from Total Income (Chapter VI-A) (Business ITR)

v) Large difference in the closing stock shown in Balance sheet and Trading and Manufacturing a/c of current year as per Return of Income.

vi) High liabilities as compared to low income/receipts vii) Real estate business with high closing stock (Verify whether assessee has done correct accounting of income)

viii) Large difference in the opening stock of current year (in Trading & Manufacturing account) and closing stock of previous year (in Trading & Manufacturing account a/c as per Return of Income)”

5. After considering the assessee’s submission the Learned Assessi