2023 (7) TMI 752 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) - approval of Industrial Park by the Empowered Committee - development of the Industrial Park by an individual or by the partnership firm - objection of the AO that the Industrial Park was being developed by the partnership firm - HELD THAT - The Industrial Park was commissioned in September 2006. The material on record indicates that, on the basis of an erroneous State Government Report about the ownership of the property in which the Industrial Park was constituted, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry rejected the approval vide its letter dated 4th March 2009. It was the same letter which was found during the survey action and on the basis of which the claim for deduction made by the Assessee was rejected by the AO. Prior to the search and survey action, the Assessee had applied for a Review of the rejection to the Empowered Committee on 24th April 2009. The Empowered Committee, after reconsideration of the earlier rejection, had granted approval for three units on 11th June 2002 to Mr. S. Balan, the Assessee, which was effective from 12th May 2006. The objection of the AO that the Industrial Park was being developed by the partnership firm is also not factually correct, in view of the explanation offered by the Assessee and also the letter issued by the Competent Authority. Once the Central Government grants the approval, it is incumbent on the part of the AO to grant the claim of deduction. As decided in Income Tax Appeal 2019 (2) TMI 2083 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Section 80IA(4) of the Act recognizes deductions to the assessee who is an undertaking which develops and operates or maintains and operates and Industrial Park. The assessee fulfilled the said requirement as also the other procedural requirement laid down in the scheme. Rule 18C(i) itself as noted provided that the benefit would be available to an undertaking which begins to develop such Industrial Park. In the present case, the assessee had already developed the Industrial Park and as many as 21 units were already operational as admitted by the revenue. These units were sold during the assessment year in question. The profit arising out of such sale was accounted for in the said year and offered to tax. It was therefore, that the assessee was entitle to deduction in respect of such profit - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the Assessing Officer's (AO) disallowance of the deduction.
3. Acceptance of additional evidence by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].
4. Reconsideration and approval by the Empowered Committee.

Summary:

1. Eligibility for Deduction Under Section 80IA(4)(iii):
The Assessee claimed deductions under Section 80IA(4)(iii) for its Sai Trinity project. The AO disallowed the deduction based on a letter from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, which stated that the building did not belong to an individual but to a partnership firm, and only a part of the building was being developed as an Industrial Park. The Assessee initially withdrew the claim during a survey action but later retracted this withdrawal.

2. Validity of AO's Disallowance:
The AO found the Assessee's explanation unacceptable and disallowed the deduction, citing the letter from the Ministry and the Assessee's initial withdrawal. The AO noted that the Assessee's retraction was not immediate and lacked proof of coercion. The AO's decision was based on the letter dated 4th March 2009 and the Assessee's statement during the survey.

3. Acceptance of Additional Evidence by CIT(A):
The Assessee appealed to the CIT(A), presenting a letter dated 12th May 2012 from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, which was not available during the AO's assessment. The CIT(A) forwarded this additional evidence to the AO for rebuttal. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction based on the new evidence and the Assessee's submissions.

4. Reconsideration and Approval by the Empowered Committee:
The Empowered Committee reconsidered its earlier rejection and granted approval to the Assessee's project on 11th June 2012. The Assessee clarified that the Industrial Park was developed by an individual, not a partnership firm. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Assessee fulfilled the conditions under Section 80IA(4)(iii), and the AO's role was limited once the Central Government granted approval.

Conclusion:
The High Court found no substantial question of law in the Appeals and upheld the ITAT's decision, dismissing the Revenue's Appeals. The Assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) as the conditions were met, and the Empowered Committee's approval was valid. The Appeals were dismissed.