2014 (3) TMI 1124 - AT - Income Tax

Claiming deduction under section 80IA - whether each wind mill division is a separate entity is itself - Held that - Admittedly, while granting relief to assessee on merits, the CIT(A) accepted its argument that each wind mill division is a separate entity is itself and option of claiming deduction under section 80IA rests with the assessee. From the statement of facts filed by the Revenue, it is noticed that its mere argument is that against the decision of the hon ble jurisdictional high court, special leave petition before the apex court is pending. In our view, merely because the Revenue s special leave petition is pending does not form a valid ground to adopt a different approach in the impugned assessment year in absence of any distinction on facts being pointed out. In assessment year 2004-05 (supra) the issue has travelled upto the tribunal and stands decided in assessee s favour. Assessee eligibility for deduction under section 80IA confirmed. Reopening of assessment - Held that - In the course of arguments, we have asked the Revenue to point out any failure on assessee s part by way of placing cogent material on record and the same is nowhere forthcoming. Thus, we agree with the findings of the CIT(A) and observe that since there is no failure on assessee s part in disclosing fully and truly all particulars of income for claiming deduction under section 80IA, the Assessing Officer could not have reopened the assessment after four years from the end of the impugned assessment year. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for deduction under section 80IA for assessment year 2006-2007.
2. Validity of reopening assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Treatment of losses and deductions for windmill divisions.
4. Reopening notice validity and deduction under section 80IA for turbine division.

Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IA:
The case involved two appeals challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2006-2007. In ITA No.116/Mds/2014, the Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the assessee's deduction under section 80IA. The CIT(A) upheld the assessee's argument that each windmill division is a separate entity, granting the deduction. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing consistency with past tribunal rulings and rejecting the Revenue's pending special leave petition as a valid ground for a different approach.

Validity of Reopening Assessment under Section 147:
In ITA No.117/Mds/2014, the Revenue challenged the reassessment reopening notice issued after four years, adding an amount to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) deemed the reopening invalid, citing the absence of failure on the assessee's part to disclose necessary information. The Tribunal agreed, noting the lack of reasons in the assessment order for the reopening after four years, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

Treatment of Losses and Deductions for Windmill Divisions:
Regarding windmill division losses and deductions, the CIT(A) in ITA No.116/Mds/2014 allowed the assessee's appeal based on the separate entity status of windmill divisions and the option to claim deductions under section 80IA for each division. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the absence of factual distinctions warranting a different approach and affirming the assessee's eligibility for deduction.

Reopening Notice Validity and Deduction for Turbine Division:
In the same appeal, the Revenue challenged the reopening notice and deduction under section 80IA for the turbine division. The CIT(A) found the reopening invalid due to the absence of failure in disclosing information by the assessee, leading to the allowance of the appeal. The Tribunal concurred, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and dismissing both appeals, emphasizing the lack of justification for the reopening after four years.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of eligibility for deduction under section 80IA, validity of reopening assessments, treatment of losses and deductions for windmill divisions, and the validity of reopening notices for the turbine division, culminating in the dismissal of both Revenue's appeals.