C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J)

All these tax case appeals are filed by the appellant/Assessee questioning the correctness and/or validity of the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “B” Bench, passed in (i) M.P.No.257/Mds/2009 in I.TA.No.194/Mds/2008 dated 18.12.2009 (ii) M.P.No.259/Mds/2009 in I.TA.No.2259/Mds/2007 dated 08.01.2010 and (iii) I.TA.No.194/Mds/2008 dated 10.07.2009 respectively.

2. On 20.10.2010, all these Tax Case appeals were admitted by this Court by raising the following substantial questions of law:

T.C.A. No. 797 of 2010 “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction under Section 80 IB of the Income Tax Act in respect of the housing project undertaken and constructed by it?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the relief sought for by the appellant amounted to a review of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and not merely a rectification of mistake?”

T.C.A. No. 870 of 2010 “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in not restoring the appeal which was withdrawn by the appellant in the peculiar circumstances of the case?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in rejecting the petition for restoration of the appeal?”

T.C.A. No. 871 of 2010 “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), on the ground that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, which could be rectified?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought not to have confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), holding that the appellant is entitled to relief under Section 80IB(1) of the Income Tax Act?”

3. The Appellant-Assessee is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of land development and construction. On 01.12.2003, the appellant filed their return of income for the assessment year 2003-2004 admitting an income of Rs.4,69,426/-. The respondent-Assessing Officer processed the return of income on 20.01.2004 and issued a notice under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act (in short, the Act) dated 17.11.2005, calling upon the appellant to submit certain particulars. The representative of the appellant also appeared before the respondent on 28.11.2005 and submitted documentary evidence. Thereafter, the respondent scrutinised the return of income submitted by the appellant and noticed that the appellant originally claimed deduction of Rs.28,32,048/- under Section 801B(10) of the Act in respect of the projects undertaken by them titled "Marvel Apoorva" and "Wood Creek County". However, in the revised return of income filed on 03.02.2006, they have restricted their claim of deduction to the project "Marvel Apoorva" only and claimed deduction of Rs.68,79,782/- and disclosed net loss of Rs.35,78,307/-. In the return of income as well as the revised return of income submitted by the appellant, the gross total income before deduction under Section 801B(10) was indicated as Rs.33,01,474/-. The respondent also noticed that "Marvel Apoorva" was developed by the appellant in a large extent of land measuring 2.70 acres and the project consists of commercial as well as residential blocks. According to the respondent, deduction under Section 801B(10) is allowable only for a housing project and when the appellant had constructed a commercial cum residential blocks, they are not entitled for deduction. Therefore, the assessment order dated 31.03.200