Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 210 - ITAT KOLKATARevision u/s 263 - PCIT's revision action on the ground that the AO had wrongly treated not as a works contractor under 80IA(4) Explanation as per the corresponding show-cause notice - HELD THAT:- We find no reason to sustain the PCIT's revision order under challenge. It has sufficiently been highlighted in the preceding paragraphs that this assessee is a company engaged in road infrastructure development and maintenance business from assessment year 2005-06 onwards. It has developed at least 17 projects (supra) from assessment year 2010-11 out of which some of the projects i.e. "Shivgunj" has formed part of tribunal's adjudication on the very issue from assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 vide order dated 23.12.19 holding it as a entity for similar section 80IA relief. Learned coordinate bench holds in very clear terms that it is the assessee only who has not only employed plant and machinery and to other assets along with the staff but also it had been bearing all the risks involved in the said infrastructure projects and therefore, it could not have been treated a mere works contractor. The corresponding twin infrastructure development agreements involving identical project stipulations to be performed at the assessee's behest which sufficiently reveal that there has not been any deviation vis-à-vis all other similar projects in the impugned assessment year. AO has also accepted assessee's section 80IA deduction in succeeding assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 as well and the corresponding preceding assessment years since assessment orders to this effect. No disallowance has been made qua section 80IA deduction claim in any of these assessments which have attained finality. We conclude that the Assessing Officer had taken only the plausible view in accepting the assessee's section 80IA deduction claim in his assessment dated 30.03.2015 u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The PCIT exercise of impugned revision jurisdiction is held as not sustainable in the eyes of law going by the foregoing settled legal proposition (supra). The same is accordingly reversed. PCIT's revision show-cause notice had treated the section 143(3) assessment herein as a case of Assessing Officer having erroneously accepted the assessee's section 80IA deduction claim whereas his section 263 order under challenge has merely restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication. We adopt the foregoing detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis to accept the assessee's above-stated arguments on this latter aspect as well to set aside and reverse the PCIT's revision order under challenge dated 20.03.2017. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|