9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were admitted by a Bench of this Court by order dated 02.01.2020 on the following substantial question of law. "Whether respondent-assessee was entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IA(2)(iv)(c)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relying upon the notification bearing No.714E dated 07.10.1997?" The substantial question of law framed in both the cases are identical. 2. The facts giving rise to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of zirconium silicate, colours and frits for application in tiles and sanitary ware. In respect of Assessment Year 2004-2005, the assessee filed return of income in respect of Assessment Year 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 and claimed deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act submitted that in order to claim the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act, the industry is required to be situated in the backward area which may be specified in the Notification issued by the Central Government and should commence the production during the period from 01st October 1994 till 31st March 1999. 4. In the instant case, admittedly the unit of the assessee is not situated within the backward District as specified in the Official Gazette. Therefore, the Tribunal has grossly erred in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of 80IA of the Act. In support of aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the Revenue has placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... construction, which results in equity rather than any injustice, then such construction should be preferred to the literal construction. 8. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. J.H. GOTLA', (1985) 23 TAXMAN 14J (SC). 9. We have considered the submission made on both sides and have perused the records. 10. It is well settled in law that when an exemption is granted with a beneficent object i.e., to encourage production or setting up an industry in backward area in terms of Industrial Policy, the provision relating to exemption has to be liberally construed (see 'STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. TATA CUMINS LTD.,' (2006) 4 SCC 57). It is eq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing on the 1st day of October, 1994, and ending on the 31st day of March, 2000;" 12. From the perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that in order to avail benefit of deduction, twin conditions have to be satisfied, namely, that industry should be located in Industrial Backward District as prescribed by the Central Government vide Notification in the Official Gazette and the aforesaid Industry has to commence the production during the period beginning from 1st October 1994 and ending on 31st March 1999. 13. Admittedly in the instant case, the industrial undertaking of the appellant-assessee is not located in the Industrial Backward District, which has been mentioned in the Notification issued by the Central Government. It is pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
