9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1582 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of deduction u/s.80ID - assessee is engaged in the business running of hotel in the name of Bizzotel Hotel in Gurgaon - revised return - Held that - Once the assessee has disclosed such a huge amount of receipts from hotel business and there is no other material on record before the Department to hold that the assessee had some other business or sources of income, then it has to be reckoned that receipts are purely from the hotel business and if that is so, then assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80ID. Claim of the deduction in the revised return - Held that - From the perusal of the same, we find that there is an income tax return dated 31.03.2009 vide e-filing acknowledgement no. 67426740310309 wherein assessee has claimed deduction under Chapter-VIA amounting to ₹ 2,28,96,593/-. Original return of income has also been filed before us. Once it is an undisputed fact that revised return has been filed and claim has been made by the assessee, then such a claim has to be entertained by the Assessing Officer and this fact has been duly appreciated by the CIT (A) as incorporated above. Apart from that, on merits also assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80ID which we have already discussed in detail while deciding the appeal for the Assessment Year 2009-10. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80ID for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Acceptance of completion certificate and post facto resubmission of Form No. 10CCBBA. 3. Admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. 4. Rejection of deduction claim under Section 80ID for the Assessment Year 2008-09 based on the revised return of income. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80ID for the Assessment Year 2009-10: The primary issue was whether the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80ID. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction, arguing that the hotel was not completed by the stipulated date, as indicated by the audit report showing 'building under construction.' The AO also questioned the genuineness of the completion certificate and noted deficiencies in Form No. 10CCBBA. However, the CIT(A) found that the hotel was operational before the stipulated date, supported by various documents, including luxury tax payments and guest records. The CIT(A) concluded that the hotel was functional and allowed the deduction under Section 80ID. 2. Acceptance of Completion Certificate and Post Facto Resubmission of Form No. 10CCBBA: The AO rejected the completion certificate issued by the Executive Engineer (Building) Municipal Council, Gurgaon, citing a lack of building description and location. The AO also rejected the post facto resubmission of Form No. 10CCBBA due to initial deficiencies. However, the CIT(A) accepted the completion certificate, noting that it mentioned the hotel's location. The CIT(A) also accepted the revised Form No. 10CCBBA, citing judicial precedents that allow correction of such deficiencies during assessment proceedings. 3. Admission of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A: The AO objected to the admission of additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule 46A, arguing that the assessee was given adequate time to respond. However, the CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence, noting that the AO provided only a day's notice to the assessee to respond to the show cause notice. The CIT(A) found that the additional evidence, including various approvals and guest records, corroborated the assessee's claim that the hotel was operational. 4. Rejection of Deduction Claim under Section 80ID for the Assessment Year 2008-09: The AO rejected the deduction claim under Section 80ID for the Assessment Year 2008-09, stating that it was not claimed in the original return but only in a revised return. The CIT(A) noted that the revised return was filed within the stipulated time and included the deduction claim. The CIT(A) found that the AO ignored the revised return and failed to appreciate the facts, leading to an erroneous denial of the deduction. The CIT(A) also noted that appellate authorities could entertain such claims, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT. Conclusion: The CIT(A) allowed the deduction under Section 80ID for both assessment years, finding that the hotel was operational and the assessee had complied with the necessary requirements. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeals for both assessment years. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s findings were based on a correct appreciation of facts and in accordance with the law.
|
