2008 (11) TMI 48 - HC - Income Tax

Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction as claimed in respect of the profits derived from an industrial undertaking held that both the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT (A) had failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances obtaining in the present case as well as the state of the law. The Tribunal s judgment over-turning the said view of the authorities below and holding that assessee was entitled to the claim cannot be faulted and hence does not require any interference

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to deduction under Section 80-IA and Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the claim for deduction in the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02.
3. Compliance with the conditions for deduction under the relevant sections.
4. The impact of legislative amendments on the entitlement to deductions.
5. The requirement for filing a revised return for claiming deductions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Deduction under Section 80-IA and Section 80-IB:
The core issue was whether the respondent/assessee was entitled to deductions under Section 80-IA and Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent/assessee was entitled to the claimed deductions, sustaining the claim based on the provisions of the Act as they applied during the relevant assessment years.

2. Validity of the Claim for Deduction in the Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02:
The respondent/assessee set up an industrial undertaking in 1993-94, commenced production on 24.03.1994, and initially did not claim deductions due to losses. Deductions were claimed from the assessment year 1998-99 onwards. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deductions for the assessment year 2001-02, arguing that the claim under Section 80-IA was due to a typographical error and that the business did not qualify under the infrastructural development category.

3. Compliance with the Conditions for Deduction under the Relevant Sections:
The Assessing Officer examined the claim under Section 80-IB, noting that the respondent/assessee commenced production on 24.03.1994, outside the statutory period for small scale industrial undertakings (01.04.1995 to 31.03.2000). The Tribunal, however, found that the respondent/assessee met the conditions under Section 80-IA (2) (iv) (a) as it stood in the initial year, and thus was eligible for deductions.

4. The Impact of Legislative Amendments on the Entitlement to Deductions:
Section 80-IA was amended multiple times, and by the Finance Act, 1999, it was bifurcated into Sections 80-IA and 80-IB. The Tribunal noted that the original deductions available under Section 80-IA (2) (iv) (a) were retained under Section 80-IB (3) (i). The Tribunal held that the respondent/assessee was entitled to deductions under Section 80-IB (3) (i) since the legislative intent was to continue the original deductions.

5. The Requirement for Filing a Revised Return for Claiming Deductions:
The Tribunal ruled that the respondent/assessee was not required to file a revised return as it had not made any 'new claim'. The Tribunal held that the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in Goetz (India) Ltd v. CIT was not applicable in this case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal correctly appreciated the respondent/assessee's contention regarding the state of the law relevant to the initial year of production (assessment year 1994-95) and the changes brought about by the Finance Act, 1999. The Tribunal's direction to the Assessing Officer to verify the conditions set out in Section 80-IA (2) (iii) for eligibility under Section 80-IB was upheld. The Tribunal's judgment overturning the views of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) was deemed correct, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.