The ACIT Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Montecarlo Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 310/AHD/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9769 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 10-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: .AFTERTHESUBSTITUTIONOFTHEEXPLANATION; THELEGALPOSITIONSTANDSFURTHERFORTIFIEDTO

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण , अहमदाबादनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’BENCH,AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER And MsMADHUMITAROY,JUDICIALMEMBER आयकरअपीलसं ./ITANo.310/AHD/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt.Year:2017-2018 A.C.I.T, CentralCircle-1(3), Ahmedabad. Vs. M/sMontecarloLimited, 706,7 th Floor, ShipBuilding, C.G.Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. PAN:AAACM7958A (Applicant)(Respondent) Assesseeby:ShriTusharHemani,Sr.Advocatewith ShriParimalsinhB.Parmar& ShriM.KPatelA.Rs Revenueby:Dr.DarsiSumanRatnam,CIT.DR सुिवाईकीतारीख /DateofHearing:11/10/2023 घोरणाकीतारीख /DateofPronouncement:30/11/2023 आदेश /ORDER PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER: ThecaptionedappealhasbeenfiledattheinstanceoftheRevenueagainst theorderoftheLearnedCommissionerofIncometax(Appeals)11,Ahmedabad, arisinginthematterofassessmentorderpassedunders.143(3)oftheIncome TaxAct,1961(here-in-afterreferredtoas"theAct")relevanttotheAssessment Year2017-2018. ITAno.310/AHD/2020 A.Y.2017-18 2 2.TheRevenuehasraisedfollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theId.CIT(A)has erredinallowingthedeductionu/s80IA(4)oftheActforanamountofRs.86,52,24,043/- whichviolatestheexplanationbelowsection(13)toSection801Aastheassesseehas workedasacontractornotdeveloper. 1.1.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theId.CIT(A) haserredinnotappreciatingthefactthataftertheamendedprovisionsofthe section80-IA,apersonwhoentersintoacontractwillnotbeeligibleforthetax benefitu/s80-IAoftheAct 1.2.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theId.CIT(A) haserredinnotappreciatingthefactthatthecompanyisnotinthebusinessof developmentoftheinfrastructureprojectbutismerelyexecutingthevariouswell- definedcivilconstructionactivitiesasperthespecifications,designsandplans providedbythedevelopersoftheinfrastructureproject. 2.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theId.CIT(A)has erredinallowingenhanceddeductionu/s801A(4)oftheActontheadditionalincome relyingupontheCircularofCBDTandearlierdecisionswithoutappreciatingthefactthatin thepresentcasenolinkhasbeenestablishedthatthisenhancedprofitasaresultof surveyoperationisapartofeligiblebusinessprofitandthefactthattheseprofitswerenot reportedinauditedbooks. 3.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)ought tohaveupheldtheorderoftheA.O. 4.Itis,therefore,prayedthattheorderoftheLd.CIT(A)besetasideandthatof theA.O.berestoredtotheaboveextent. 2.1Attheoutset,wenotethattherewasadelayinfilingtheappealbythe Revenuefor45days.AspertheRevenue,thedelayinfilingtheappealbythe Revenueisattributabletocovidpandemic.Thus,suchdelayshouldbecondoned. Admittedly,thedelayinfilingtheappealfallsduringthecovid-19period.The Hon’bleSupremeCourtvideorderdated09/05/2022intheSLPbearingNo. 2522/2022inthecaseofBabasahebRaosahebKobarne&ANRVs.PyrotekIndia PrivateLimitedhasdirectedtoexcludetheperiodfrom15-03-2020till31-05-2022 forthepurposeoflimitation.Accordingly,afterconsideringtheoutbreakofcovid- 19,weherebycondonethedelayandproceedtoadjudicatetheissueonmerit. 3.TheissueraisedbytheRevenuevidegroundNo.1isthatthelearned CIT(A)erredinallowingthedeductiontotheassesseeu/s80IA(4)oftheAct. ITAno.310/AHD/2020 A.Y.2017-18 3 4.Theassessee,apubliclimitedcompany,isengagedinthebusinessof developmentofinfrastructureandotherprojectsi.e.,irrigationcanal,road construction,waterseweragesystemetc.Theassesseeintheyearunder considerationclaimedadeductionundersection80IA(4)oftheActforRs. 86,52,24,043/-inrespectof13differentprojectsofRoads,Canal(irrigation)and Watersupply.Theassesseesubmittedthatitfulfilledalltheconditionprescribed undersection80IA(4)oftheActi.e.itisapubliccompanyregisteredinIndia carriedoutbusinessofdevelopmentofinfrastructureprojectsasdefinedunder theimpugnedsection,theprojectswereawardedbytheGovernmentsorlocal authority.Indevelopinginfrastructureprojects,ituseditsownexpertise,technical knowledge,planning,resources,andfinanceetc.Theassesseealsosubmittedthat itmaintainedseparateprofitandlossandseparateauditreportsinform10CCB filedalongwithITRforallthe13projects. 4.1However,theAOheldthattheassessee,inthedevelopmentof infrastructureprojectworkedasworkcontractorandnotasdeveloperforwhichit receivedtimetotimepaymentfromGovernmentauthoritiesfortheworkexecuted andinvoicewereaccordinglyissued.Thus,theAOdisallowedtheclaimofthe assesseebyobservingasunder: 2.12AfterthesubstitutionoftheExplanation,thelegalpositionstandsfurtherfortifiedto theeffectthattheassesseederivingprofitandgainsfromworkcontractsarenoteligible fordeductionunderthesection.Thecaselawsrelieduponbytheassesseedonothelpin itscaseaseithertheyhavebeenrenderedondifferentfactsoraftertheamendmentIn ExplanationbelowSubsection(13)ofSec.80-IAbytheFinance(No.2)Act2009they havebeenrenderedineffective.Fromthediscussionandfactsandcircumstancesofthe instantcase,itisprovedthattheassesseecompanyhasactedas"WorkContractor"and notas"Developer"andtheincomeonwhichdeductionu/s.801A(4)oftheActhasbeen claimedwasrelatedtothecontractworksexecutedbytheassessee.Thus,itisproved thattheworkscarriedoutbytheassesseecompanywerenotasDeveloperbutasaWork Contractorandbyvirtueofagreements,theassesseecompanyreceivedthepayments fromtimetotimebyraisingthebills. 2.13Further,theassesseecompanyhasalsoreliedupontherecentcitationofHon'bleIT AT,DBench,AhmedabadincaseofM/s.SugamConstructionPvt.limitedvs.ITO.But, here,itispertinenttomentionthattheissueisadebatableanddidnotattendtoits finalityandintheinstantcase,previousappealsarependingatvariouslevelsofappellate authorities,Hence,inviewofthechangedpositionofthelawasstatedabove,the assessee'sclaimfordeductionu/s*0.8-A(4)isnotinconformitywiththeprovisionsof ITAno.310/AHD/2020 A.Y.2017-18 4 theAct.Further,theBoard'sCircularcitedbytheassesseedealswithadditionmadeu/s 32,Section40(a)(ia)Section43BoftheActandnotaboutallowabilityofdeductionu/s 801Aonadditionalincomeonaccountofunverifiableexpensesdisclosedduringthesurvey proceedingsandassuchthesaidincomecannotbepartofdeductionu/s.801AoftheAct. Even,otherwiseinthepresentcasetheassesseeisnotentitledfordeductionu/s801Aof theAct,forthereasonsasdiscussedabove.Since,inthepresentcase,theassessee companywasdoingonlycontractwork,thebenefitofSection80-IAcannotbeextendedto it.Inlightoftheabovefacts,theassessee'sclaimfordeductionu/s80-IA(4)of Rs.86,52,24,043/-isdisallowedandaddedbacktothetotalincomeoftheassesseeforthe yearunderconsideration.Penaltyproceedingsu/s.270A(1)oftheIncomeTaxActis herebyinitiatedseparatelyforunderreportingofincome. 5.TheaggrievedassesseepreferredanappealbeforethelearnedCIT(A). 6.ThelearnedCIT(A)foundthattheassesseehasbeenclaimingdeduction undersection80IA(4)oftheActforlastseveralyearswhichhasbeendisallowed bytheAObutonappeal,thedeductionwasallowedbyhispredecessor.The learnedCIT(A)alsofoundthatdeductionundersection80IA(4)hasbeenallowed byhispredecessorevenontheprojectforwhichtheassesseehasclaimed deductionintheyearunderconsideration.InthisregardthelearnedCIT(A)inhis ordergivenspecificfindingintabularformatpages41to44ofhisorder specifyingtheyearsinwhichdeductionontheseprojectshasalreadybeen allowedbyholdingtheassesseeasdeveloper.Accordingly,thelearnedCIT(A) wasoftheviewthattheprincipleofconsistencyshallbefollowed,anddeduction claimedbytheassesseeintheyearunderconsiderationshallalsobegranted. Besides,thelearnedCIT(A)afteranalysisofthescopeofworkcarriedoutbythe assesseeandtheclausesoftheagreementsaswellcaselawsalsofoundthatthe assesseedevelopedtheinfrastructureprojects/facilitiesasadeveloperandnotas workcontractorasallegedbytheAO.Therelevantobservationandfindingofthe learnedCIT(A)inthisrespectareatpages55to77ofhisorder. 7.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A)theRevenueisin appealbeforeus. ITAno.310/AHD/2020 A.Y.2017-18 5 8.BoththelearnedDRandlearnedARbeforeusvehementlysupportedthe orderoftherespectiveauthoritiesbelowtotheextentfavourabletothem. 9.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecords.Admittedly,theassesseehasclaimeddeduction undersection80IA(4)oftheActon13differentprojectsofinfrastructurefacilities whichhasbeendisallowedbyAO.Onappealbytheassessee,thelearnedCIT(A) allowedtheclaimofdeductionbyfollowingtheorderofthepredecessorCIT(A)in owncaseoftheassesseefromA.Y.2004-05to2011-12and2013-14.Thelearned CIT(A)alsogivencategoricalfindingthattherewerenonewprojects.Assuch,the deductiononallthe13projectswereclaimedinearlieryears(inbetween2004-05 to2011-12).Attheoutset,wenotethattherevenuewasinappealbeforethis tribunalinowncaseoftheassesseeonthesameissueinA.Ys.2008-09to2011- 12bearingITANos.1892&386to388/AHD/2013.Thecoordinatebenchofthis tribunalvideorderdateddecidedtheissueofdeductionundersection80IA(4)of theActinfavouroftheassesseebyobservingasunder: 11.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthematerials availableonrecord.Fromtheprecedingdiscussion,wenotethattheAOhasdeniedthe deductionclaimedbytheassesseeundersection80-IA(4)oftheActonthereasonthat theworkawardedbeingirrigationprojectandconstruction/developmentofRoadisinthe natureofexecutionofworkcontractandhitbytheprovisionsofexplanationtobelow section80IA(13)oftheAct.Further,theAOallegedthatownershipoftheprojectdoesnot liewiththeassesseeandtheassesseewasnotengagedindeveloping,operating,or operatingormaintainingtheinfrastructurefacility.Assesseehasenteredintoacontract withthecompanyincorporatedundertheCompanyActandnotwiththeCentralGovt, StateGovt,LocalAuthorityorStatutoryBodyasmandatedundertheprovisionsoftheAct. 11.1Beforewedwellupontheissueinvolvedinthecaseonhand,itispertinenttoreferto thehistoryoftheprovisionsofsection80IA(4)oftheAct.Section80-IAwasfirst introducedbytheFinanceAct1991forprovidingadeductionfromtaxtotheindustrial undertaking.Thepurposeofprovidingsuchdeductionwasforthemodernizationand expansionofindustrialundertaking. 11.2However,theprovisionofthissectionwasamendedbytheFinanceAct1995because thelegislaturerealizedthatthemodernizationofindustrialundertakingrequires developmentofinfrastructurefacilities.Thisfactcanbeverifiedfromthememorandum explainingtheamendmentinthesectionasreproducedbelow: Industrialmoderanisationrequiresamassiveexpansionof,andqualitativeimprovementin, infrastructure.Ourcountryisverydeficientininfrastructuresuchasexpressways, highways,airports,portsandrapidurbanrailtransportsystems.Additionalresourcesare ITAno.310/AHD/2020 A.Y.2017-18 6 neededtofulfiltherequirementsofthecountrywithinareasonabletimeframe.Inmany countriestheBOT(build-operate-transfer)ortheBOOT(build-own-operate-transfer) conceptshavebeenutilisedfordevelopingnewinfrastructure. Applyingcommercialprinciplesintheoperationofinfrastructurefacilitiescan providebothmanagerialandfinancialefficiency.Inviewofthis,itisproposedto allowafiveyeartaxholidayforanyenterprisewhichbuilds,maintainsand operatesanyinfrastructurefacilitysuchasroads,highways,orexpresswaysor newbridges,airports,portsandrapidrailtransportsystemonBOTorBOOTor similarotherbasis(wherethereisanultimatetransferofthefacilitytoa Governmentorpublicauthority).Theenterprisemusthaveenteredintoan agreementwiththeCentralorStateGovernmentoralocalauthorityoranyother statutoryauthorityforthispurpose.Theperiodwithinwhichtheinfrastructure facilityhastobetransferredneedstobestipulatedintheagreementbetweenthe undertakingandtheGovernmentconcerned.Thetaxholidaywillbeinrespectof incomederivedfromtheuseoftheinfrastructurefacilitiesdevelopedbythem. 11.3Hence,thelegislatureinsertedsub-section4Atosection80-IAoftheActw.e.f.1st April1996forprovidingthedeductiontotheenterprisesorundertakingsengagedinthe businessofdevelopmentandoperating&maintainingofinfrastructurefacility. 11.4Further,w.e.f.1stApril2000sub-section-4Awasre-numberedassubsection-4of section80IAoftheAct.Subsequently,themajorchangeswerebroughtbytheFinanceAct 2001w.e.f.1stApril2002,whentherequirementfordevelopingandoperating& maintaininginfrastructurefacilitysimultaneouslywasdoneaway.Assuch,thededuction undersection80-IA(4)(i)oftheActisalsoavailabletoassesseewhoisengagedonlyin developmentofinfrastructurefacilityoronlyengagedinoperation&maintenanceof infrastructurefacilityorengagedinbothdeveloping,operating,andmaintainingany infrastructurefacility.Theamendedprovisionofsection80-IA(4)(i)oftheActreadsas under: (4)Thissectionappliesto— (i)anyenterprisecarryingonthebusiness91[of(i)developingor(ii)operating andmaintainingor(iii)developing,operatingandmaintaining]anyinfrastructure facilitywhichfulfilsallthefollowingconditions,namely:— 11.5Aplainreadingoftheaboveprovisionrevealsthatundertheamendedprovisionsof section80-IA(4)oftheAct,theassesseeisentitledtosuchbenefit,evenifitisengaged onlyindevelopingtheinfrastructurefacilities. 11.6Subsequently,anExplanationtosection80-IAoftheActwasinsertedbytheFinance Act,2007andlateronamendedbytheFinance(No.2)Act,2009butthesamewasmade applicablewithretrospectiveeffecti.e.1-4-2000.Thisexplanationdeniesthebenefitof deductionundersection80-IA(4)oftheActtoapersonwhoexecutesaprojectwhichisin thenatureofworkscontract.Atthisjuncture,itispertinenttorefertheprovisionsofthe Explanationattachedbelowsection80-IA(13)oftheActasreproducedbelow: "Fortheremovalofdoubts,itisherebydeclaredthatnothingcontainedinthis sectionshallapplyinrelationtoabusinessreferredtoinsub-section(4)whichis inthenatureofaworkscontractawardedbyanyperson(includingtheCentralor StateGovernment)andexecutedbytheundertakingorenterprisereferredtoin sub-section(1)." 11.7Theexplanationreproducedabovedeniesthebenefitofdeductionundersection80- IA(4)oftheActtoapersonwhoexecutesaprojectwhichisinthenatureofworks contract. ITAno.310/AHD/2020 A.Y.2017-18 7 11.8Comingtothefactsofthecaseonhand,wenotethattheoneofthethrustofthe Revenuefordenyingthebenefittotheassesseeundertheprovisionsofsection80IA(4)of theActwasrevolvingaroundthefactthattheassesseeisnotadeveloperofinfrastructure facility.Itisonlyengagedinthebusinessofworkcontractawardedtoit.TheAOalso invokedtheexplanationbelowtosubsection13ofsection80IAoftheAct.Likewise,the assesseehasnotenteredintoanycontractwithCentral/StateGovernmentorlocal authorityasspecifiedundersection80IAoftheAct.AlltheallegationsoftheAOfor denyingthebenefitofdeductionundersection80-IAoftheActhavebeenelaboratedin theprecedingparagraphs. 11.9Toourunderstanding,theRevenuebeforeinvokingtheexplanationbelowtosection 80IA(13)oftheActwastoappreciatethedifferencebetweena'developer'anda'works contractor'.Generally,incommonparlanceapersonisreferredtoas'developer'who undertakestheprojecttodevelopandconstructatitsownresponsibilityandtakesallthe risksofthedevelopment.Theseresponsibilitiesandriskcanbecategorizedasunder: (a)Thatinadevelopmentcontract,responsibilityisfullyassignedtothedeveloper todoallactsforexecutionandcompletionofworkrightfromdesigningthe projecttillhandingovertheprojecttotheGovernment.Assuch,theagreementis notforaspecificwork,itisfordevelopmentoffacilityasawhole.Indeed,the ownershipofthesiteortheownershipoverthelandremainswiththe Government/ownerbutduringtheperiodofdevelopmentagreementthe developerexercisecompleterealmoverthelandortheproject.However,insome casetherecanbeasituationthattheassesseehastotaketheapprovalofthe designfromtheGovernment/contracteebutthatwillnotchangethestatusofthe developerasworkscontractor. (b)Thatthefirstphaseforthedeveloperistotakeovertheexistingpremisesof theprojectsandthereafterdevelopingthesameintoinfrastructurefacility. Secondly,thedevelopershallfacilitatethepeopletousetheavailableexisting facilityevenwhiletheprocessofdevelopmentisinprogress. (c)Thatadeveloperhastodischargemanagerialresponsibilitybyengagingthe requisitequalified/skilled/semi-skilledstaffandthelabourersincludingtheother supportingstaff.Assuch,thedeveloperundertakesthecompleteresponsibilityof themanpowertobeusedindevelopingtheinfrastructurefacility. (d)Theassesseehastoutilizeitsexpertise,experienceincludingitstechnical knowhowinthedevelopmentoftheproject. (e)Thatadeveloperhastoundertakefinancialresponsibility.Adeveloperis thereforeexpectedtoarrangefinanceeitherbyprivateplacementorfromfinancial institutionfortheproperdevelopmentoftheprojectatitsownrisk.Thus,the developeristheonewhoundertakesentrepreneurialandinvestmentriskbesides thebusinessrisk. (f)Thatadeveloperisrequiredtobringthequalitativematerials.TheGovernment doesnotprovideanymaterialtotheassessee. (g)Thatadeveloperisrequiredtobringplantandmachineriestobeutilizedinthe project. (h)AnylosscausedtothepublicortheGovernmentintheprocessofdeveloping theproject,itwouldbetheresponsibilityofthedeveloper.TheGovernmentshall nottakeanyresponsibilityforanysuchkindoflossexceptwhereitisresponsible. (i)Thatadeveloperstandsasguarantorfortheprojectdevelopedbyitandinthe eventofanydefectintheproject,heshallprovidetheremedyforthesame. (j)Thatadevelopershallbeexposedtothepenaltyifitcontravenesanyofthe clausesappearinginthecontractawardedbytheGovernment.Thus,the developerisresponsibletocompletetheconstructioninaspecifiedmannerfailing whichitwouldberesponsiblefortheconsequencesofdelay/anyotherfault attributabletoit. ITAno.310/AHD/2020 A.Y.2017-18 8 (k)Thatadevelopershallundertaketomaintainsafety,securityandprotectionof theenvironment.(l)Thatadevelopershallprovideandmaintainathisowncost, alllights,guards,fencing,warningsignsandwatching,whenorwherenecessary. 11.10Thesearefewbroadsamplequalities/parametersofadeveloperthroughwhichthe characterofadevelopercanbedefined. 11.11Ontheotherhand,a'contractor'isapersonwhoundertakesworkonacontract basis.Hedoesnotassumerisksandresponsibilitieslikethatofadeveloper.Hemerely carriesouttheworkashasbeeninstructedtohimbythecontractee.Moreover,inthe caseofsuchwork,thecontractorgetsafixedamountofrevenuetotheextentofthework executedbyitandisnotentitledtoanyshareofprofitfromtherevenuegeneratedbythe developerfromtheinfrastructurefacility. 11.12Tosummarize,thedeveloperactsasaprincipalwhereasthecontractoractsasan agentinperformingthefunctionsasrequiredbythedeveloper.Thedevelopers,intrue sense,arethepersonswhoarecarryingoutthebusinessofdevelopingoroperatingand maintainingordeveloping,operating,andmaintainingtheinfrastructurefacilitywhereas thecontractorsarethosepersonswhomerelyexecutepartofthesefunctionsonbehalfof developeranddonotownanyrisksandresponsibilitiesofthework.Insuchcases,the contractorsmaynotbeeligibleforthedeductionundersection80-IA(4)oftheAct,asthey arenotdevelopinganyinfrastructurefacilitybutonlyprovidingassistancetotheactual developer.11.13Now,thecontroversyarisesthathowtofindoutwhethertheassesseeis actingasadeveloperorworkscontractorinthelightoftheprovisionsofexplanationto section80IA(13)oftheAct.Toourmind,itispossibletoascertainbyfindingoutwhether acivilconstruction/infrastructureworkisassignedondevelopmentbasisorworkscontract basiswithintheparametersasdiscussedabove.Further,theseparameterscanbe analyzedonlybasedonthetermsandconditionsoftheagreement.11.14Inthebackdrop oftheabovestateddiscussion,weproceedtoanalyzethefactsofthepresentcasetofind outwhethertheassesseeisactingasadeveloperorworkscontractor.Theassesseeinthe yearunderconsiderationhasundertakencertainprojectsandclaimedadeductionunder section80IAoftheAct.Thedetailsofalltheprojectswhethereligiblefordeductionornot undersection80IA(4)oftheActalongwiththeamountofdeductionundersection80IA(4) oftheActstandasunder: ********** 11.15Onsamplebasis,weanalyzetherelevantclausesofthetenderdocumentsplacedin thepaperbookNO.IIinrespectoftheprojectnamelyUPGRADATIONREHABILIATION ANDSTENGTHENINGOFPACKAGE-14,LAKHNADAN-,MANDIADINDORI(SH-10)ROAD PROJECTwhichcastcertainresponsibilities/accountabilitiesupontheassessee.The detailsofthesamestandasunder: ************* 11.16Onthedetailedanalysisoftheaboveproject,wefindthattheassesseemeetsthe criterialaiddownforthedeveloperasdiscussedabove.Assuch,theassesseewasto makedetaileddrawings,designcalculations/fabricationetc.atitsowncost.Further,the assesseeisalsoresponsibleforarrangingmethodsoftheexecutionofworkalongwith detaileddrawings,sketches,furnishingthedetailsofsufficientplants,equipment,and labor.Theassesseehastoarrangethelandforatemporarysiteoffice,officelaboratory, parkingyard,storeyard,laborcamp,workshopetc.Theassesseewasdutyboundto protecttheenvironmentonandoffthestaffsiteandavoidthedamageornuisanceetc.to thepersonsortothepropertyofthepublic.Theassesseewastomaintainatitsowncost sufficientexperiencedsupervisorystaffrequiredfortheworkandarrangementoftheir housing.Theassesseewastohavethefieldlaboratoryforthepurposeoftestingmaterials. Theassesseehastoarrangeelectricpowerandwatersupply.Theassesseewasalso ITAno.310/AHD/2020 A.Y.2017-18 9 undertheobligationtoprovidetrafficsafetyarrangementslikesignboard,speedlimit speedbreakers,diversionboard,etc.Besidestheabove,theassesseewastopaythe liquidateddamagesincaseofdelayinthecompletionofprojectandotherdefaults. 11.17Thepurposeforwhichtheprovisionsofsection80IA(4)werebroughtunderthe statutewereachievedinthegivenfactsandcircumstances.Thus,thefactthatthe assesseedeploysitsresources(material,machinery,labouretc.)intheconstructionwork clearlyexhibitstherisksundertakenbytheassessee.Further,thetenderdocumentas discussedabovehasclearlydemonstratedthevariousrisksundertakenbyit.Theassessee wastofurnishasecuritydeposittotheemployerandindemnifyatthesametimeforany losses/damagecausedtoanyproperty/lifeincourseofexecutionofworks.Further,the assesseewasresponsibleforthecorrectionofdefectsarisingintheworksatitsowncost. Forthatpurpose,theMPRDCLretainedthemoneypayabletotheassesseeasameasure toensurethequalityoftheworkandtomakeliabletheassesseeintheeventofadefect, ifany.Thus,itcannotbesaidthattheassesseehadnottakenanyriskinthegivenfacts andcircumstancesespeciallywhentheassesseehasundertakentheprojectasawholefor thedevelopmentoftheroadrightfromthebeginningtilltheend.Thus,onperusalofthe termsandconditionsinthetenderdocumentsfurnishedbytheassessee,itisclearthat theassesseewasnotaworkscontractorsimplybutadeveloperandhence,the explanationtosection80-IA(13)doesnotapplytotheassessee. 11.18Goingforward,wefindinthiscontext,theHon'blePuneTribunalinthecaseof B.T.Patil&SonsBelgaumConstructions(P.)Ltd.[2013]34taxmann.com97/59 SOT61(URO)afterreferringtodecisionoftheHon'bleBombayHighCourtinthecaseof CITv.ABGHeavyIndustriesLtd.[2010]322ITR323/189Taxman54haslaiddown certainparametersforcontractorstobeeligiblefordeduction.Thesaidparametersfora contractortobeeligiblefordeductionareasfollows:— (a)Undertakingfinancialriskbymakinginvestment. (b)Shoulderingtechnicalrisk. (c)Liableforliquidateddamages. (d)Employmentoftechnicalandadministrativequalifiedteam. 11.19Iftheaboveparametersaresatisfied,thecontractorswouldbeheldeligibleforthe deductionundersection80-IAoftheAct.Thus,theaboveparametersmayactasguiding factorstodecidewhetheracontractormaybeconsideredasadeemeddevelopereligible fordeductionundersection80-IA(4)oftheAct.Admittedly,theassesseewasproviding andundertakingtheriskforcarryingouttheactivityofdevelopmentoftheinfrastructure facilityinthemannerasdiscussedabove.Theassesseewasalsotakingtechnicalrisk, subjecttoliquidateddamages,providingtechnicalmanpower. 11.20Further,incaseofAsstt.CITv.PratibhaIndustriesLtd.[2012]28 taxmann.com246/[2013]141ITD151(Mum.),theHon'bleMumbaiTribunalheld thatwheretheassesseehadinvestedhisownfund,itwouldbeassumedthatthe assesseewasactingasadeveloperandnotasacontractor.Relevantextractoftheabove decisionisreproducedasunder: Therearelettersexchanged,writtenbytheassesseeandvariousGovernment departments,whichindicatethattheassesseewasawardedthejob,whereinthe assesseehadplacedthebankguarantee,againstthetenderedcost,whichproved beyonddoubtthattheassessee,itselfwasdoingthedevelopmentofinfrastructure facility,onbehalfoftheGovernment,besidesplacingitsownfundsatriskand peril." ITAno.310/AHD/2020 A.Y.2017-18 10 11.21Further,wedrawsupportbyplacingourrelianceontheJudgmentofHon’bleITAT KolkataincaseofAsstt.CITv.SimplexInfrastuctureLtdLtd.I.T.A.No. 01/Kol/2020videorderdated10/03/2021whereinitwasheldsunder: “Itisnotedthatinadevelopmentcontract,responsibilityisfullyassignedtothe developerforexecutionandcompletionofwork.Itisevidentthattheassessee, videtheagreements,hasclearlydemonstratedthevariousrisksundertakenbyit. Inalltheagreements,relevantportionsofwhicharereproducedsupra,the assesseehasundertakenhugerisksintermsofdeploymentoftechnicalpersonnel, plantandmachinery,technicalknowhow,expertiseandfinancialresources.Hence, undoubtedlyenteringintolawfulagreementsandtherebybecomingacontractor should,innoway,beabartotheonebeingadevelopersincetheroleofa developerislargerthanthatofacontractor.Assuchitfollowsfromtheabovethat theassessee,whoisengagedindevelopingtheinfrastructuralfacility,isrightfully entitledtothebenefitsofdeductionu/s.80IA(4)oftheAct” 11.22Inviewoftheabove,itcansafelybeconcludedthattheassesseehasundertaken projectswhichareinthenatureofinfrastructurefacilitiesinthecapacityofthedeveloper asadmittedbytheld.CIT-A.Accordingly,weconcurwiththefindingsoftheLd.CIT(A) thattheassesseehasundertakentheprojectsofinfrastructurefacilityasenvisagedunder theprovisionsofsection80IA(4A)oftheActinthecapacityofthedeveloper. 11.23Movingfurther,wenotethatthereisnoambiguitytothefactthattheword developerandtheworkscontracthasnowherebeendefinedundertheprovisionsofthe Act.Forthispurpose,therulesasapplicabletotheinterpretationofthestatuteshouldbe applied.Oneoftherulesofinterpretationistoanalyzetheprovisioninthelightofthe objectforwhichitwasbroughtunderthestatute.Inholdingsowerelyonthejudgement ofHon’bleHighSupremeCourtinthecaseofNewIndiaAssuranceCompanyLtdvs NusliNevilleWadiaAndAnotherincivilappealno5879of2007videorderdated31- 12-2007whereinitwasheldasunder: “WithaviewtoreadtheprovisionsoftheActinaproperandeffectivemanner, weareoftheopinionthatliteralinterpretation,ifgiven,maygiverisetoan anomalyorabsurditywhichmustbeavoided.Soastoenableasuperiorcourtto interpretastatuteinareasonablemanner,thecourtmustplaceitselfinthechair ofareasonablelegislator/author.Sodone,therulesofpurposiveconstruction havetoberesortedtowhichwouldrequiretheconstructionoftheActinsucha mannersoastoseethattheobjectoftheActfulfilled;whichinturnwouldlead thebeneficiaryunderthestatutoryschemetofulfillitsconstitutionalobligationsas heldbythecourtinteraliainAshokaMarketingLtd.” 11.24Inviewoftheabove,theexplanationbelowtosection80IA(13)shouldbereadin suchawaythattheobjectoftheprovisionsofsection80IA(4)oftheActshouldnotbe defeated.Asdiscussedabove,thesolepurposeofthebenefitofdeductionundersection 80IA(4)oftheActwastobringthedevelopmentintheareaofinfrastructurefacilitiesfor whichthecountrywasindeficient.Thus,iftheliteralmeaningisdrawnfromthewordof thedeveloperandaccordinglythedeductionofthebenefitgivenundersection80IAof theActisdenied,thentheobjectforwhichtheprovisionsofsectionwerebroughtunder thestatutewillbedefeated.Therefore,theprovisionsofsection80IA(4)oftheActshould bereadinsuchawaythattheobjectofthestatuteshouldnotbedefeated. 11.25Thenextaspectofthecaseisthattheimpugnedprojectfortheroaddevelopment asdiscussedabovewasawardedbytheMPRDCL-anodalagencybeingawhollyowned undertakingoftheGovernmentofMadhyaPradesh.MPRDCLinitsbooksofaccountswill notrecordthepaymentmadetotheassesseeintheformofexpenses.Itisbecause MPRDCLagainstsuchexpenditurehasnotshownanyincome.Italsoappearsthat ITAno.310/AHD/2020 A.Y.2017-18 11 MPRDCLisnotclaiminganydeductionundersection80IA(4)oftheAct.Atthetimeof hearing,aquestionwasraisedtothelearnedDRbuthefailedtoprovideanyinformation withrespecttothedeductionclaimedbyMADCu/s80IA(4)oftheAct.Thus,thequestion ariseswhowillclaimthedeductionundersection80IA(4)oftheAct.Assuch,weareof theviewthattheprovisionsofsection80IA(4)shouldnotbereadinawaytomakeit redundantorirrelevant.Accordingly,weareinclinedtograntthebenefittotheassessee undertheprovisionsofsection80IA(4)oftheAct. 11.26Movingforward,thereisnodisputetothefactthatthebenefitofdeductionunder section80IA(4)oftheActwasdeniedtotheassesseebasedontheexplanationbrought underthestatutebelowsub-section(13)ofsection80(IA)oftheActwhichhasbeen elaboratedintheprecedingparagraph.Atthisjuncture,letusunderstandtheroleofthe explanationexplainingtheprovisionsoftheAct.Inourconsideredopinionordinarily,an explanationisintroducedbytheLegislatureforclarifyingsomedoubtsorremoving confusionwhichmaybepossiblefromtheexistingprovisions.Normally,therefore,an explanationwouldnotexpandthescopeofthemainprovisionandthepurposeofthe explanationwouldbetofillagapleftinthestatute,tosuppressamischief,tocleara doubtorasisoftensaidtomakeexplicitwhatwasimplicit.Further,theobjectofan explanationtoastatutoryprovisionis– (a)ToexplainthemeaningandintendmentoftheActitself, (b)Wherethereisanyobscurityorvaguenessinthemainenactment,toclarifythesame soastomakeitconsistentwiththedominantobjectwhichitseemstosub-serve, (c)ToprovideanadditionalsupporttothedominantobjectoftheActinordertomakeit meaningfulandpurposeful, (d)AnExplanationcannotinanywayinterferewithorchangetheenactmentoranypart thereofbutwheresomegapisleftwhichisrelevantforthepurposeoftheExplanation,in ordertosuppressthemischiefandadvancetheobjectoftheActitcanhelporassistthe Courtininterpretingthetruepurportandintendmentoftheenactment,and (e)Itcannot,however,takeawayastatutoryrightwithwhichanypersonunderastatute hasbeenclothedorsetatnaughttheworkingofanActbybecomingahindranceinthe interpretationofthesame. 11.27Thereare,however,otherjudicialpronouncementsoftheHon’bleSupremeCourt suggestingthatthoughtherulethatanexplanationismeantonlyforfillingagapinthe statuteorremovinganyambiguityorclearingamischief,suchruleofnormalapplicationis notunknowntoexceptions. 11.28Fromtheabove,itistranspiredthattheconditionofbeingdeveloperofthe infrastructurefacilitywasalreadyembeddedundertheprovisionsofsection80IAofthe Act.Inholdingso,wedrawsupportandguidancefromthejudgmentofHon’bleGujarat HighCourtinthecaseofM/sKatiraconstructionVsUnionofIndiareportedin31 taxmann.com250whereinitwasheldasunder: “Inour,opinion,whattheexplanationaimstoachieveistoclarifythatdeduction undersection80IA(4)oftheActwouldnotbeavailableincaseofexecutionof workscontract.Thefactthatsuchinterpretationoftheexistingprovisionsofsub- section(4)ofsection80IAoftheAct,evenwithouttheaidoftheexplanationwas possible,inouropinion,isnotdisputable.Asnoted,sub-section(4)ofsection 80IAevenaftertheamendmentintheyear2002envisageddeductionincaseof developingoroperatingandmaintainingordeveloping,operatingandmaintaining anyinfrastructurefacility.Evenwithouttheaidoftheexplanation,itwaspossible tocontendthatsuchexpressiondidnotincludeanenterpriseexecutingaworks contract.Particularly,bearinginmindtheobservationsmadebythisCourtinthe caseofRadheDevelopers(supra),therewouldcertainlybeademarcationbetween ITAno.310/AHD/2020 A.Y.2017-18 12 developingthefacilityandexecutionofworkscontractawardedbyan agencyengagedindevelopingsuchfacility.” 11.29RegardingthecontentionofthelearnedDRthattheassesseeforclaimingthe deductionundersection80IA(4)oftheActmustderiveincomefromtheuseofsuch infrastructurefacility,theargumentofthelearnedDRtoourmindistotallymisplaced.Itis forthereasonthattheroleoftheassesseeinthegivencaseislimitedtotheextentof developingtheinfrastructurefacility.UndertheoldprovisionsoftheAct,itcontainedthe conceptofbuilt,operate,maintained,transfer,whereintheassesseeafterdevelopingthe roadusedtooperatethoseroadsandusedtocollecttaxfromthevehiclesusingthe infrastructurefacilitytocompensateitsinvestment.Butalltheserequirementshavebeen doneawaybytherevenueaselaboratedabove.Inholdingso,wedrawsupportand guidancefromthejudgmentoftheHon’bleBombayHighCourtincaseofCITVs.GB HeavyIndustriesLtd.reportedin322ITR323whereinitwasheldasunder: “Moreover,asamatteroflaw,whattheconditionessentiallymeansisthatthe infrastructurefacilityshouldhavebeenoperationalafter1-4-1995.Aftersection 80-IAwasamendedbytheFinanceActof2001,thesectionappliestoan enterprisecarryingonthebusinessof(i)developing;or(ii)operatingand maintaining;or(iii)developing,operatingandmaintaininganyinfrastructure facilitywhichfulfilscertainconditions.Thoseconditionsare:(i)Ownershipofthe enterprisebyaCompanyregisteredinIndiaorbyaconsortium;(ii)Anagreement withtheCentralorStateGovernment,localauthorityorstatutorybody;and(iii) Thestartofoperationandmaintenanceoftheinfrastructurefacilityonorafter1- 4-1995.Therequirementthattheoperationandmaintenanceoftheinfrastructure facilityshouldcommenceafter1-4-1995hastobeharmoniouslyconstruedwith themainprovisionunderwhichadeductionisavailabletoanassesseewho develops;oroperatesandmaintains;ordevelops,operatesandmaintainsan infrastructurefacility.Unlessboththeprovisionsareharmoniouslyconstrued,the objectandintentunderlyingtheamendmentoftheprovisionbytheFinanceActof 2001wouldbedefeated.Aharmoniousreadingoftheprovisioninitsentirety wouldleadtotheconclusionthatthedeductionisavailabletoanenterprisewhich (i)develops;or(ii)operatesandmaintains;or(iii)develops,maintainsand operatesthatinfrastructurefacility.However,thecommencementoftheoperation andmaintenanceoftheinfrastructurefacilityshouldbeafter1-4-1995.Inthe presentcase,theassesseeclearlyfulfilledthiscondition” 11.30Inviewoftheabovediscussion,weareinclinedtoholdthattheassesseewhois onlyengagedintheactivityofdevelopmentofinfrastructurefacilityiseligibletoclaimthe deductionu/s80IA(4)oftheAct. 11.31Likewise,thecontentionofthelearnedDRthattheassesseewasinreceiptof moneyfromtheGovernmentagainstthedevelopmentoftheroadandthereforethe assesseeisnoteligiblefordeductionundersection80IA(4)oftheActisagainmisplacedin ourconsideredopinion.TheHon’bleDelhiHighCourtinthecaseofCITVs.VRMIndiaLtd reportedin57taxmann.com325hasheldasunder: “Sincetheassesseedevelopedaninfrastructurefacility/projectandwasnot requiredtomaintainoroperate,itwasentitledtocost,plusthemarginofincome orprofit;nottoexpectthistreatmentwouldrenderonewhodevelopsan infrastructurefacilityproject,unabletorealiseitscost.Iftheinfrastructurefacility is,afteritsdevelopment,transferredtotheGovernment,naturallythecostwould bepaidbytheGovernment.Therefore,themerecircumstancethattheIndian RailwaysorDDApaidfordevelopmentofahousingprojectcarriedoutbythe assessee,didnotmeanthattheassesseedidnotdeveloptheresidentialcomplex. Iftherevenue'sinterpretationisaccepted,noenterprise,carryingonthebusiness ITAno.310/AHD/2020 A.Y.2017-18 13 ofonlydevelopingtheinfrastructurefacility,wouldbeentitledtodeductionunder section80-IB(10).TheconclusionsoftheITATinthiscontextwererenderedafter adetailedanalysisofthefactsandthecontractsenteredintobytheassesseewith IRWOandDDA.ThenarrowgroundonwhichtheAOconcludedthattheprojects were"owned"byIRWOorDDAandthattheassesseewasonlyaworkscontracts, wasunwarranted.” 11.32We,therefore,donothaveanydoubtregardingtheadmissibilityoftheclaimmade bytheassesseeandentertainthesamebygivingrelieftothateffect. 11.33FurthertheLd.DRvehementlyarguedonthejudgmentofjurisdictionalHighCourt inthecaseofKatiraConstructionVsUnionofIndiareportedin352ITR513whereinthe saidmatterwasdecidedagainsttheassessee.Inourconsideredview,thematterbefore theJurisdictionHighcourtwasthatofconstitutionalvalidityoftheinsertionofexplanation asmentionedhereinaboveanddecidedthesameinfavouroftherevenuetothiseffect thatsuchexplanationbroughtwithretrospectiveeffectfrom01.04.2000bytheFinance ActNo.2of2009wasverywellwithinthecompetenceofParliament.Assuchtherewas noissueraisedwhethertheassesseeisactingasadeveloperorcontractorbeforethe Hon'bleJurisdictionalHighCourtneither,thesaidissuehasbeendecidedinthesaid judgement. 11.34Theorganizationswhichhaveawardedthecontractare100%ownedbytheState Governmentandthereforeitcannotbesaidthattheseareprivateparties.Assuchthe organizationawardedthecontracttotheassesseearethearmsoftheStateGovernment. 11.35Atthetimeofhearing,boththelearnedDRandtheARbeforeussubmitted`that projectsinrespectofwhichthedeductionwasclaimedbytheassesseewereofidentical nature.Therefore,wehaveanalyzedonecontract/agreementwiththegovernmenton samplebasis.However,thefindingsgivenwithrespecttothecontractelaboratedabove shallalsobeappliedinallthecontractswhichweresubjecttothedeductionundersection 80-IA(4)oftheAct.Inviewoftheabove,thegroundsofappealoftheRevenuewith respecttotheadmissibilityoftheclaimoftheassesseeundersection80-IA(4)oftheAct areherebydismissed. 9.1Beforeus,nomaterialhasbeenplacedonrecordbytheRevenueto demonstratethatthedecisionofTribunalinowncaseoftheassesseeas discussedabovehasbeensetaside/stayedoroverruledbytheHigherJudicial Authorities.Beforeus,nomaterialwasplacedonrecordtopointoutany distinguishingfeatureinthefactsofthecaseofearlierAYandtheyearunder consideration.Thus,respectfullyfollowingtheorderofthetribunalintheown caseoftheassesseeasdiscussedabove,wefindnoinfirmityinthefindingofthe learnedCIT(A).Thus,thegroundofappealraisedbytherevenueishereby dismissed. ITAno.310/AHD/2020 A.Y.2017-18 14 10.ThenextissueraisedbytherevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin holdingthattheamountofdeductionwillgetenhancedbytheamountof additionalincomeofferedinthesurveyproceedings. 11.Therewasasurveyproceedingundersection133AoftheActcarriedoutat theassessee’spremiseson06-04-2017.Duringthesurveyoperation,statementof thedirectoroftheassesseecompanynamelyShriMurnalKPatelwasrecordedto whichheagreedtoofferanadditionalincomeofRs.18croresonaccountof unverifiableexpenses.However,nosuchincomewasofferedintheITR. Therefore,TheAOwhilefinalizingtheassessmentandcomputingtheassessment incomemadeseparateadditionofimpugnedadditionalincome. 12.TheaggrievedassesseepreferredanappealbeforethelearnedCIT(A).The learnedCIT(A)heldthatadditionalincomewasagreedtobeofferedonaccountof unverifiablebusinessexpensesthereforethebusinessincomewillstandincrease bysuchamountonwhichtheassesseewillbeeligibletoclaimdeductionunder section80IAoftheAct.TherelevantfindingofthelearnedCIT-Aisreproducedas under: 6.3Thedisallowanceofsuchunverifiableexpensesasdiscussedinthestatementrecorded duringthecourseofsurveywouldresultindisallowancetothatextentoutoftotal expensesfortherelevantperiod.Inotherwords,thebusinessincomeoftheassessee companywouldstandenhancedbyRs.18CrorewhichisalreadyreflectedinComputation ofTotalIncomeandintheReturnfiledpursuanttonoticeinthisregard.Therefore, consequentlytheclaimfordeductionu/s80-1A(4)oftheActoughttobeincreased proportionately. 6.4ItissettledpositionoflawthatanyadditioninBusinessProfitsshallinvariablyleadto enhancementofdeductionunderChapterVI-A.JurisdictionalGujaratHighCourthasin caseofITOWard5(1)vsKevalConstructionheldthatanydisallowancewouldultimately resultinincreaseinassessee'sprofitsfrombusinesswhichiseligibleforprofitlinked incentive.Andtherefore,enhancedprofitsconsequenttodisallowanceiseligibleforprofit linkeddeductionunderChapterVI-AoftheAct.Hon'blejurisdictionalhighcourtwhile dismissingappealoftherevenuenotedthat 5.Havingheardcounselonboththequestiontodayinthisappeal,wefindnoerrorinthe Tribunal'sultimateconclusion.Evenifacertainexpenditurewhichwasincurredbythe assesseeforthepurposeofdevelopinghousingprojectwasnotallowablebyvirtueof section40(a)(ia)oftheAct,sincetheassesseehadnotdeductedthetaxatsourceas requiredunderlaw,itcannotbedeniedthatsuchdisallowancewouldultimatelygotoI increasetheassessee'sprofitfromthebusinessofdevelopinghousingproject.Whatever ITAno.310/AHD/2020 A.Y.2017-18 15 betheultimateprofitofassesseeascomputedevenaftermakingdisallowanceunder section40(a)(ia)oftheAct,wouldqualifyfordeductionasprovidedunderthelaw. 6.5Inthisconnection,attentionwasinvitedtotheCBDTCircularNo.37/2016dated02nd November,2016whereinBoardhasacceptedthesettledpositionthatanydisallowance relatedtobusinessactivityresultsinenhancementofprofitsoftheeligiblebusiness,and deductionunderChapterVI-Aisadmissibleontheprofitssoenhancedbythedisallowance. 6.6ItispertinenttomentionherethatHon’bleCIT(A),hasalsoallowedadditionalclaim ofdeductionu/s.80IA(4)oftheActconsequenttodisallowanceofbusinessexpenditurein appellateorderspassedforA.Y2009-10,A.Y2010-11&A.Y2011-12.Therefore,enhanced claimofdeductionu/s.80IA(4)oftheActshallbeallowedinrespectofenhancedprofitof eligibleundertakingsinviewofdisallowanceofestimatedunverifiableexpenses.Thus,the groundofappealisallowed. 13.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),theRevenueisin appealbeforeus. 14.BoththelearnedDRandlearnedARbeforeusvehementlysupportedthe orderoftherespectiveauthoritiesbelowtotheextentfavourabletothem. 15.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecords.Fromtheprecedingdiscussion,wefindthatthe additionof₹18croreswasmadeonaccountofunverifiableexpenseswhichwere recordedinthebooksofaccounts.Assuch,theexpensesrecordedinthebooksof accountstothetuneof₹18croreswerenotsupportedbytheproperdocumentary evidence.Therefore,theassesseeagreedtodisclosesuchincomeintheincome taxreturn.Admittedly,theadditionmadeonaccountofunverifiableexpensesis goingtoenhancetheincomeoftheassessee.However,admittedly,theassessee hastwocategoriesoftheprojectbeingeligibleandnon-eligiblefordeductionfor deductionundersection80IA(4)oftheAct.Undeniably,theincomeofboththe categoryoftheprojectbeingeligibleandnon-eligiblewillenhancebutthe deductionundersection80IA(4)oftheActonaccountofenhancementofincome willbelimitedtotheeligibleprojectsasalsoobservedbytheld.CIT-Ainhisorder. Thus,wedonotfindanyreasontointerfereinthefindingofthelearnedCIT-A. Hence,thegroundofappealoftherevenueisherebydismissed. ITAno.310/AHD/2020 A.Y.2017-18 16 16.Intheresult,theappealoftherevenueisherebydismissed. OrderpronouncedintheCourton30/11/2023atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (MADHUMITAROY)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated30/11/2023 Manish