9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (11) TMI 384 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IA - entitlement of benefit of Industrial Park Scheme 2002 assessee applied for approval with expected date of commencement of the Industrial Park stated to be 15.03.2006 with 8 units Approval received on 24.07.2006 on request of assessee number of units reduced to 3 applied for grant of occupation certificate on 08.03.07 received certificate on 02.06.07 request for enhancing units to 5 being made on 21.09.07 - application rejected on the ground that since the expected date of commencement of the Industrial Park is after 31 March 2006, application not being covered by the Industrial Park Scheme of 2002 and benefits can be availed of only the number of units indicated in the application - advised to apply under Scheme of 2008 - Held that -Clause (iii) of Section 80-IA (4) requires that the Scheme has to be notified for the period between 1.04.1997 and 31.03.2006. The statutory provision does not contain a specific requirement to the effect that the industrial park had to be developed on or before 31.03.2006. In present case, I.T. Park should have started functioning before 14 March 2007( including one year grace period conferred by Scheme). Since the Petitioners had completed the work of the building on 08.03.2007, they should be regarded as having complied with the norms of the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002. Further, the Empowered Committee while granting approval did not treat the requirement that the industrial park should commence on 15 March 2006 as inviolable and petitioners had in their original application stated that there would be eight units. Hence, the order of the Empowered Committee is set aside and committee is directed to consider the application filed by the Petitioners including for the reduction of units without holding the Petitioners to be disentitled on the ground that has been found to be erroneous in the judgment of this Court. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Empowered Committee's order denying benefits under the Industrial Park Scheme 2002. 2. Interpretation of Section 80-IA (4) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Applicability and interpretation of Para 9 of the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002. 4. Date of commencement and completion of the Industrial Park. 5. Reduction in the number of units in the Industrial Park. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Empowered Committee's Order: The Empowered Committee's order dated 21 February 2011 denied the Petitioners the benefits under the Industrial Park Scheme 2002, citing that the industrial park was not completed by 31 March 2006. The Petitioners challenged this order under Article 226 of the Constitution, questioning its legality. 2. Interpretation of Section 80-IA (4) (iii): Section 80-IA (4) (iii) provides a deduction for profits derived from eligible businesses, including the development of industrial parks. It specifies that the industrial park must be notified by the Central Government for the period between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 2006. The court noted that the statutory provision does not explicitly require the industrial park to be completed by 31 March 2006. Instead, it must be developed in accordance with the Scheme framed for the specified period. 3. Applicability and Interpretation of Para 9 of the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002: Para 9 (1) of the Scheme addresses delays in the commencement of the industrial park, stating that if delayed by more than one year from the date indicated in the application, fresh approval is required. The court emphasized that this condition also applies to existing approvals under the previous Scheme, which envisaged commissioning by 31 March 2002. The court found that Para 9 (1) contemplates delays and allows for fresh approval, thus not making 31 March 2006 an absolute cut-off. 4. Date of Commencement and Completion of the Industrial Park: The Petitioners initially indicated 15 March 2006 as the expected date of commencement. The Union Government's approval on 24 July 2006 acknowledged this date and allowed for a one-year grace period, implying that the park should start functioning before 14 March 2007. The court observed that the Empowered Committee's approval did not treat 15 March 2006 as inviolable, and the completion date was considered as 8 March 2007 by the Municipal Corporation. 5. Reduction in the Number of Units: The Petitioners initially proposed eight units but later sought to reduce this to three, and then to five. The court noted that the Petitioners maintained the proposed area and allocable area despite the reduction in units. The court found that the Empowered Committee's rejection based on the delayed completion date prevented it from exercising its jurisdiction under Para 9 (1) to consider the reduction in units. Conclusion: The court concluded that the Empowered Committee's rejection of the Petitioners' application based on the completion date was contrary to law. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the Empowered Committee to reconsider the application, including the reduction of units, without disqualifying the Petitioners based on the erroneous ground identified. The court emphasized that the interpretation of Para 9 (1) should not defeat the public purpose underlying Section 80-IA (4) (iii) and acknowledged the need for flexibility in infrastructural projects requiring significant investment and time.
|
