2016 (1) TMI 1423 - HC - Income Tax

Review petition - Deduction u/s 80IB (10) (a) (ii) - delay in filing of review petitions - HELD THAT - Neither the provisions of the Corporation Act which have been relied by the review petitioners in the present petitions nor the decision of the Supreme Court will be of any avail. Review petitioners in all fairness submits that the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Sundaram Pillai's case 1985 (1) TMI 306 - SUPREME COURT was not dealing with the express provision such as Explanation sub-Clause (ii) below Section 80IB (10) (a) (ii). As a result, no case for review is made out. Review petitioners submits that the review petitioners be granted liberty to take recourse to remedy of appeal before the Supreme Court. It is open to the review petitioners to pursue such other remedy as may be permissible in law. This request, however, cannot be entertained in review petitions. Review petitioner in Review Petition then submits that the remedy of appeal was not available to the Department in the fact situation of that case. For, the Tribunal had already set aside the decision of the lower Authority and referred back the matter to the AO. Even so, in our opinion, that would not warrant review of the judgment under consideration on that count, as the interpretation given to the provisions contained in Section 80IB (10) as amended by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 which came into force w.e.f. 1.4.2005, would still apply in all cases heard and disposed of together. Taking any view of the matter all these review petitions must fail and the same are dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing review petitions, Interpretation of Section 80IB (10) in relation to Municipal Corporation Act, Scope of Supreme Court decision in S. Sundaram Pillai case, Availability of appeal remedy before Supreme Court.

In this judgment, the High Court addressed the delay in filing review petitions ranging from 14 to 52 days and allowed the delay applications in the interest of justice. The review petitions were taken up for hearing immediately by consent of both parties. The primary issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 80IB (10) concerning the computation of the completion date of a housing project for tax benefits. The petitioners argued that the Municipal Corporation Act provisions were overlooked during the main appeal, but the Court rejected this argument. The Court clarified that the Municipal Corporation Act has no relevance to the interpretation of the Income Tax Act amendments under consideration, emphasizing the importance of the express provisions in the Finance Act. The Court's interpretation was based on the explicit provision in the Explanation below Section 80IB (10) (a) (ii), which dictated the date of completion of construction based on the issuance of a completion certificate by the local authority.

Moreover, the Court highlighted that the Supreme Court decision in the S. Sundaram Pillai case did not address the specific provision like the Explanation below Section 80IB (10) (a) (ii), thus not warranting a review. The review petitioners' request to be granted liberty to appeal before the Supreme Court was deemed impermissible in the review petitions. Additionally, it was noted that even if the Tribunal had referred the matter back to the Assessing Officer in a specific case, it did not justify a review of the judgment concerning the interpretation of Section 80IB (10) as amended by the Finance Act. Ultimately, the Court held that all review petitions must fail as the interpretation of Section 80IB (10) applied uniformly to all cases heard together, leading to the dismissal of the review petitions.