2016 (6) TMI 1227 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) u/s 115JB - whether provisions of Minimum Alternative Tax are not applicable to the assessee appellant? - Held that - No other definition of unit under any Central Act has been provided by the assessee and even no case law on this issue have been cited. The ld. counsel for the assessee has given a dictionary meaning of the word Unit and submitted that the word Unit is not restricted to the units in Special Economic Zone Act 2005 but is applicable to units at any place. The contention of the assessee has no merit because these are the special provisions provided for exemption to the builders etc. who have raised the construction of units in Special Economic Zone only. Since the assessee has not carried on any business as a Developer in a unit established in Special Economic Zone or Special Economic Zone therefore provisions of Section 115JB(6) will not apply in the case of the assessee. CIT(Appeals) gave a specific finding of fact that the assessee is not situated in a unit or Special Economic Zone therefore the case of the assessee does not fall under section 115JB(6). Finding of fact recorded by ld. CIT(Appeals) has not been rebutted through any evidence or material on record. Nothing to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in rejecting the claim of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Levy of Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) under section 115JB for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10.

Analysis:
The issue in this case revolves around the levy of tax under section 115JB (MAT) for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Assessing Officer had assessed the total income for these years, with substantial amounts under MAT. The appellant, a developer of housing project units, contended that the provisions of MAT were not applicable to them as per section 115JB(6) of the Income Tax Act, which exempts income from business carried on by a developer in a Special Economic Zone. The appellant argued that since their income was from developing residential units, they fell under this exemption.

The appellant filed written submissions before the ld. CIT(Appeals), emphasizing their claim that MAT should not apply to them as they were engaged in business as a developer in a unit. They cited the ambiguity in the interpretation of the law and relied on a Supreme Court ruling that interpretations favoring the assessee should be preferred in case of ambiguity. However, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed both appeals, upholding the levy of MAT. The ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that the exception under section 115JB(6) applied to concerns situated in a Special Economic Zone, which the appellant was not. The ld. CIT(Appeals) found no merit in the appellant's claim and sustained the action of the Assessing Officer in charging MAT.

During the appellate proceedings, the appellant's counsel reiterated their arguments but could not provide evidence to establish how the appellant had carried on business as a Developer in a unit. The ld. CIT(Appeals considered the definition of 'unit' under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, and concluded that since the appellant was not situated in a unit or Special Economic Zone, section 115JB(6) did not apply to them. The ld. CIT(Appeals) found no evidence to rebut the factual findings and upheld the dismissal of the appeals.

In the final order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the appellant, stating that in the absence of evidence to counter the findings of the authorities below, there was no basis to interfere with the decision to reject the appellant's claim. The appeals were deemed to have no merit and were consequently dismissed.