9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er for fresh consideration. - ITA No.679/Hyd/10 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2013 - Shri Chandra Poojari And Shri Saktijit Dey,JJ. For the Appellant : Sri M. H. Naik For the Respondent : Sri S. Rama Rao ORDER Per Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member:- The revenue has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 15-2-2010 of CIT (A), Tirupati pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07.. 2. The only effective ground raised by the department is as under:- "The CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the IT Act." 3. Briefly the facts of the issue are the assessee a company is a builder and contractor. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 22-11-2006 declaring an income of Rs.52,65,894/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IA f the Act. In the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA (4) development, operation and maintenance of an industrial part under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002. The Assessing Officer rejected the deduction claimed u/s 80 IA(4) citing the following reasons:- i) the claim of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer on the basis of the grounds raised by the department. 6. The learned AR supporting the order of the CIT (A) submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in case of M/s. Meenakshi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad (ITA No.313/Hyd/2010 dated 21- 10-2010.) 7. We have heard the submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. The co-ordinate bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal while considering the dispute of similar nature in case of M/s. Meenakshi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., (supra) held in the following manner:- "6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on records a and also carefully gone through all the case law cited by the rival parties. The Industrial Park Scheme 2002 was framed by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry vide notification dated 1-4-2002. The assessee has made an application to Ministry of Commerce and Industry for approval under Industrial Park Scheme on 23- 1-2005. Ministry of Commerce and Industry, vide its letter dated 17-2-2005 has given approval to the assessee for setting up an industrial park in terms of industrial pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oor along with facilities, amenities, furniture and fixtures and other infrastructures including parking space provided. The ground and 1st floor was to be handed over on or before 15th May, 2005. The remaining floors i.e., 2nd,3rd and 4th floors were to be handed over before 15th September, 2005. ii)........................................................... iii).............................................................. iv)............................................................ v)........................................................... 7.1.The benefit u/ s 80IA( 4 )(iii) of the IT Act will be available to the assessee only after the proposed number of industrial units i.e.4 are located in the industrial park and in case of delay in the implementation of the project for more than one year, as pet clause 8 of the Notification of CBDT fresh approval shall be required under the Industrial Park Scheme 2002 for availing benefit u/s 80IA(4). in the assessment year under consideration, all the 4 units were to be located in the industrial park area Now, the contention of the learned AR that though the CBDT issued notification on 21-08- 2006, therein mentioned that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.32 crores and investment in infrastructure development including investment on built up space for industrial use at Rs.62.80 crores, the amount mentioned there in the approval letter is only estimate cost of the project and the actual investment were changed on account of changes in the facilities provided to the operators and it was actually made an investment of Rs.62.63 crores. It is also a fact that as per original approval letter the assessee is required to establish 30 units and later this was changed to 4 units as per revised approval letter dated 10.4.2007. Due to this, there is a change in the total investment. The explanation given by assessee for change in the actual investment as compared to the proposed investment is bona fide one. The other contention of the department is that the Notification by Central Government is not an automatic to grant the deduction u/s 80IA.In our opinion, when the Central Govt. approves the assessee's project under Industrial Park Scheme framed by Central Govt., the conditions u/s 8OIA(4)(iii} are satisfied. Further the scheme provides for automatic approval, also it is not unlikely that in such a case, there is no specific Central Govt. a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. But it is one of the surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence not to make a fortress out of the dictionary; but to remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning. We must not adopt a strict literal interpretation of section 80IA(4)(iii) but we must construe its language having regard to the object and purpose which Legislature had in view in enacting the provision and in the con text of the setting in which: it occurs. We cannot ignore the context and the collocation of the provision in which the provision appears. The primary objection against the literal construction of section 80IA(4)(iii) is that it leads to manifestly unreasonable and absurd consequences. It is true that the consequences of a suggested construction cannot alter the meaning of a statutory provision but it can certainly help to fix its meaning. It is well recognized rule of construction that a statutory provision must be so construed, If possible, that absurdity and mischief may be avoided. There are many situations where the construction suggested on behalf of the revenue would lead to a w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove order of the Tribunal, in our opinion, the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80IA (4) of the Act if it develops the Industrial Park. Being so, the assessee has to show that it has actually developed the Industrial Park during the relevant assessment year under consideration for claiming deduction u/s 80IA (4) of the Act by bringing on record contemporaneous documents like Electricity connection, water connection, connected documents like copies of approval, fire safety certificate from the competent authority along with complying the conditions laid down by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India vide their letter No.15/24/04-IP ID dated 22-9- 2004.We find from the materials on record that excepting the lease agreement with M/s Satyam Computers, no other document has been furnished to establish the fact that the Industrial Park has been developed during the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, we remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and to decide this issue in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the resu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
