9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ril 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvey action, in the Statement recorded on 20th January 2010, the Assessee stated that he was withdrawing the claim for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) subject to the outcome of the Review Application filed before the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. 3. The AO found that, in the Return filed under Section 153A for Assessment Year 2009-10 and Assessment Year 2010-11, the Assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii). The AO sought the explanation of the Assessee and found the explanation to be not acceptable because on the basis of the said letter from the Under Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the Assessee was not eligible for the said deduction. The AO also found that the pendency of the Review Application of the Assessee before the concerned authority did not make the Assessee eligible for the said deduction. The AO further noted that the Assessee had retracted his Statement dated 20th January 2010 by filing an Affidavit dated 25th November 2011 stating that the admission was not made by him. However, the AO held that, though the Assessee had retracted the Statement, the same bore his signature, the retraction was not made immediately after the sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e partner S. Balan from the firm and in his individual capacity he incurred the entire cost of completion of the building. It was further submitted that the Industrial Park was situated in these two wings only which belonged to Mr. S. Balan as an individual and not to the said firm. 6. As regards the objection of the AO that fresh approval had to be taken, as required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, was concerned, the Assessee submitted that the park had become operational within the extended period of one year available upto 21st September 2006 and the Assessee had already started offering income from the Industrial Park since Financial Year 2006-07, relevant to Assessment Year 2007-08 onwards. 7. Based on the submissions advanced by the Assessee the CIT(A), by an Order dated 28th February 2013, allowed the claim of deduction made by the Assessee under Section 80(IA)(4)(iii). 8. Aggrieved by the said Order passed by the CIT(A), the Revenue filed the said Income Tax Appeal No. 1306 of 2013 before the ITAT. By the said Order dated 25th November 2016, the ITAT dismissed the said Appeal of the Revenue. 9. So far as Income Tax Appeal No. 523 of 2018 is concerned, the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0IA(4)(iii) thus provides for deduction of the profit derived by the Assessee from development or operation of an Industrial Park notified by the Central Government. The eligibility period of development of such an Industrial Park was initially between 1st April 1997 to 31st March 2006. However the Finance Act, 2006 extended the period to 31st March 2011. The responsibility of verifying the authenticity of the Assessee's claim vested in the concerned Ministry of the Central Government and the role of the Assessing Officer in that regard is limited. The Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, as notified from time to time by the Central Government, is a code in itself and lays down the criteria of eligibility, procedure of approval, conditions to be specified by the developer etc. and once the concerned ministry grants the approval, it is incumbent on the part of the AO to grant the deduction. The AO may look into the other technical requirements of the provisions contained in Section 80IA, i.e., the deduction is to be computed if the eligible business, i.e., the Industrial Park, is the only source of income for the Assessee, the Assessee must submit an Audit Report and if the income from eli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owered 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. 17. We find that the ITAT has correctly arrived at the aforesaid findings. Further, in its Order, the ITAT has referred to its previous decision on a similar issue in the case of M/s. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA Nos. 1411 to 1415/PN/2013 and ITA Nos.1478 to 1483/PN/2023. Mr. Jha, the learned Counsel for the Assessee, pointed out to us that the said decision referred to by the ITAT was challenged by the Revenue in this Court by filing Income Tax Appeal No. 838 of 2016 and by an Order dated 11th February 2019 2019 SCC Online Bom 7251 this Court had dismissed the said Appeal. The relevant portion of paragraph 5 of the said Order dated 11th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
