M/s. Rajdeep Infrastructure, Ahmednagar V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 562/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7359 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AJIT AT H WALE
• Keywords: Competent authority

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO , AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / I TA NO. 562 /PUN/20 15 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 M/S. RAJDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE, RAJDEEP HOUSE, SAVEDI, AHMEDNAGAR - 414 003. PAN : AAHFR 2945Q .... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR. / RESPONDENT A SSESSEE BY : SHRI AJIT AT H WALE REVENUE BY : SHRI ACHAL SHARMA / DATE OF HEARING : 16.10.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 .10.2017 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - I, PUNE DATED 31.10.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM THE RECORDS ARE : THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING, MAINTAINING AND OPERATING INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY ON BOT BASIS FOR INDORE MUNICIPAL 2 ITA NO.562 /PUN/2015 A.Y. 2011 - 12 CORPORATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTR UCTED FOOT - OVER BRIDGES AND ROAD SIGNAGES FOR INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT FOOT - OVER BRIDGES ARE COVERED UNDER THE EXPRESSION BRIDGE AND ROAD SIGNAGES ARE COVERED IN EXPRESSION ROAD. T HUS , FOOT OVER BRIDGES AND ROAD SIGNAGE S ARE PART INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE STRUCTURES . DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AFORESAID ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(4) OF THE ACT HOLDING FOOT - OVER BRIDGES AND INSTALLATION OF ROAD SIGNAGES DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY UNDER SECTION 80IA (4) OF THE ACT. 3 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.02.2014 , THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SKYLINE ADVERTISING (P) LTD. (225 TAXMAN 220). NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ASSAILING THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) : 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,38,41,629/ - ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN DEVELOPMENT OF ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80I A( 4) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE CORRECT FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITY OF CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD SIGNAGES AND FOOT OVER BRIDGES DID NOT AMOUNT TO DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AS STIPULATED IN SECTIO N 80IA( 4) AND HENCE, THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS YEAR. 3. THE LEARNED - CI I'(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN F OR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80I A( 4) AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE SAID DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS 3 ITA NO.562 /PUN/2015 A.Y. 2011 - 12 DERIVED FROM THE ACTIVITY OF CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD SIGNAGES AND FOOT OVER BRIDGES OVER THE ROADS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS YEAR. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A ) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ACTIVITY OF CONSTRUCTION OF FOOT OVER BRIDGES AND CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD SIGNAGES AMOUNTED TO DEVELOPMENT OF ROADS AND FORMED AN INTEGRAL AND MANDATORY PART OF ROAD AND THUS, THE SAID ACTIVITY WAS IN THE NATURE OF DEVELOP MENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AS STIPULATED U/ S 80IA( 4) AND THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA( 4) WAS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 5 . THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT - A. THE ROAD SIGNAGES CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDED VARIOUS DIRECTIONS BOARDS, CAUTIONARY SIGNS, INFORMATORY SIGNS ETC. AND THE SAID SIGNAGES CONSTRUCTED OVER THE ROADS WERE A PART AND PARCEL OF THE ROADS AND HENCE, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAME AMOUNTED TO DEVELOPMENT OF ROADS AND THUS, THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA( 4) WAS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. B. THE ROAD SIGNAGES FORM A MANDATORY PART OF ROADS AS PER THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY THE MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT (ROADS WING) AND HENCE, THERE IS NO REASO N TO HOLD THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD SIGNAGES DOES NOT AMOUNT TO DEVELOPMENT OF ROADS AND THEREBY DENY THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. C. THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED COMPOSITE CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FOOT OVER 'BRIDGES AND CONSTRUCTING ROAD SIGNAGES THEREON AND AT VARIOUS STIPULATED LOCATIONS AND SINCE, THE FOOT OVER BRIDGES WERE NOTIFIED AS INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY, THE SIGNAGES CONSTRUCTED THEREON AND AT VARIOUS STIPULATED LOCATIONS COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE IN THE NATURE OF 'NON - INFRASTRUCTU RE' FACILITY AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. INFRASTRUCTU RE' FACILITY AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 6] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SKYLINE ADVERTISING (P) LTD. 269 CTR 289(KAR) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT FACTS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE SUCH AS I) IN THAT CASE THERE WAS NO ACTIVITY OF (A) DEVELOPMENT (B) OPERATING AND (C) MAINTENANCE AS HELD BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. WHEREAS, IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE THE ACTIVITY IS OF DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILIT Y. II) IN THAT CASE THE CONTRACT WAS ONLY FOR TEMPORARY PERIOD OF 11 MONTHS. WHEREAS, IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE THE TOTAL CONCESSION PERIOD IS OF 19 YEARS INCLUDING 6 MONTHS CONSTRUCTION PERIOD AND THE PROJECT COST IS ABOUT RS. 5 CRORES. 7) IN PARA 5. 3.3 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT THE DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IS THE ONLY HIGH COURT DECISION RENDERED ON THE SUBJECT AND REPORTED AS ON DATE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRADICTORY DECISION, THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS TO BE RESPECTED AND FOLLOWED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CO NSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. DTD.22.04.2010 (ITAT NO.49 OF 2010, GA NO.894 OF2 010) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND FOOT BRIDGE WOULD CONSTITUTE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AS CONTEMPLATED IN CLAUSE (A) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80 - IA OF THE LT.ACT,1961. 8) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE 4 ITA NO.562 /PUN/2015 A.Y. 2011 - 12 GROUNDS OF APPEAL . 4 . SHRI ACHAL SHARMA REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED AT THE OUTSET THAT CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 1985/PN/2013 FILED BY REVENUE IN IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2010 - 11 VIDE ORDER DATED 14.10.2015 DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE. THE LD. DR PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 1985/PN/2013 (SUPRA). 5 . WE HAVE EXAMINED THE DOCUMENT S ON RECORD AN D PERUS ED THE ORDER OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. W E FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(4 ) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF STRUCTURE OF FOOT OVER BRIDGES AND INST ALLATION OF ROAD SIGNAGES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 , AS WELL . THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( APPEALS). THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE WAS IN APPEAL BEFOR E TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN TITLED , RAJDEEP PUBLICITY PVT. LTD VS. DCIT/ACIT IN ITA NO. 1782 &1783/PN/2007 AND 1414/PN/2008 FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 TO 2005 - 06 DECIDED ON 04.06.2010. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 ARE AS UNDER : 7. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL I.E. WHETHER THE ERECTION O F FOOT OVER BRIDGES AND INSTALLATION OF ROAD SIGNAGE FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AS ENVISAGED U/S. 80IA(4) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES GROUP CONCERN M/S. RAJDEEP PUBLICITY PVT. LTD. TH E RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID CASE IS REPRODUCED HERE - IN - UNDER : 5 ITA NO.562 /PUN/2015 A.Y. 2011 - 12 2. IN A.Y. 2003 - 04, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO ITS CLAIM U/S. 80IA(4) OF THE ACT AND SAME WAS REJECTED BY THE A.O AND IT WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE'S STAND IS THAT THE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN ITS TENDER DOCUMENTS IN CLAUSE 2.1.1. SAYS THAT 'PROJECT OF PUNE ROAD TRAFFIC SIGNAGES AND FOOT OVER BRIDGES THROUGH PRIVATE PARTICIPATION HAS BEEN EVOLVED TO DEVELOP THE CITY IN FRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES WITH NO EXCESS FINANCIAL BURDEN ON CORPORATION'. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS FOUND BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT FOR CLAIM OF .DEDUCTION UNDER 80 IA OF INCOME TAX ACT, PROFIT AND GAIN SHOULD BE DERIVED FROM DEVELOPING INFRASTRUCTURAL FACIL ITIES AS DEFINED IN INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE FACT THAT TENDER DOCUMENT OF PMC TRADES THE PROJECT OF ROAD TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND FOOT OVER BRIDGE AS HELPFUL TO DEVELOP INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES IS OF NO RELEVANCE IN THIS REGARD. THIS ISSUE HAS GOT TO BE D ECIDED WITH REFERENCE TO PROVISION OF LAW AS CONTAINED IN INCOME TAX ACT AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE CIT(A). AS REGARDS SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE THAT SECTION 80IA(4) USES THE TERM 'DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITY AND NOT CONSTRUCTION. THE TERM DEVELOPMEN T HAS WIDER CONNOTATION THAN CONSTRUCTION. FROM THE LANGUAGE OF RELEVANT SUB - SECTION 80IA, IT COULD BE SEEN THERE CANNOT BE ANY DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITY WITHOUT CONSTRUCTING THE INFRASTRUCTURE AS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION TO SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80IA. 3. AS REGARDS THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE THAT CIRCULAR NO. 10/2005 DT. 16.12.2005 STATE THAT 'FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 10/2005 DT. 16.12.2005 STATE THAT 'FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 10(23G) AND SECTION 80 IA, STRUCTURE INCLUDES STRUCTURES AT THE PORTS FOR STORAGE, LOADING, UNLOADING ETC. AND ONLY STIP ULATION PUT BY THIS CIRCULAR IS THAT THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY SHOULD ISSUE CERTIFICATE THAT THE SAID STRUCTURES FORM A PART OF THE PORT AND THAT SUCH STRUCTURES ARE BUILT ON BOT OR BOLT SCHEME AND THERE IS AN AGREEMENT THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE SAID AUTHORITY ON THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME STIPULATED IN THE AGREEMENT. THE C.B.D.T BEING THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELEGATION OF LEGISLATION AS LAW MAKING POWER OF C.B.D.T IS UNDERSTOOD, THE AMBIT OF CIRCULAR SHOULD NOT BE ENLARGED TO INCLUDE THE ACTIVITY INTO WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED. THERE CANNOT BE ANY IMPLIED ENLARGEMENT OF SUB - SECTION. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT STRUCTURES OF FOOT OVER BRIDGE AND ROAD SIGNALS ARE NECESSARY TO DEVELOP INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITY WHICH IS ROAD , LACK MERIT FOR SIMPLE REASONS THAT ROAD ON WHICH SIGNALS HAVE BEEN PUT WAS EXISTING BEFORE SIGNALS WERE PUT. IN THIS BACKGROUND, IT WAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT ROAD SIGNALS COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE AN INTEGRAL AND IN - SEPARABLE PART OF THE ROAD. THEY CAN MAK E THE USE OF ROAD MORE CONVENIENT BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT WITHOUT THE SIGNALS, THE ROAD CANNOT BE USED . 4. AS REGARDS THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE THAT SECTION 80IA USES THE WORD 'DEVELOPING' AS AGAINST SEC 80 IB(10) WHICH USES THE TERM THE DEVELOPMENT A ND CONSTRUCTION AND THEREFORE, FOR 6 ITA NO.562 /PUN/2015 A.Y. 2011 - 12 CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(4), THERE MAY BE DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE WITHOUT ITS CONSTRUCTION. IT WAS RIGHTLY FOUND MISPLACED TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (1) TO SE CTION 80 IA, WHERE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE INCLUDE ANY PROFIT AND GAIN DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING OR AN ENTERPRISE FROM ANY BUSINESS REFERRED TO SUB - SECTION (4), AND DEDUCTION OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 100% OF PROFIT AND GAIN DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE SHAL L BE AVAILABLE FOR 10 CONSECUTIVE YEARS. ACCORDING TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80IA (4), IT APPLY TO ANY ENTERPRISE CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF (I) DEVELOPING OR (II) OPERATING OR MAINTAINING OF, (III) DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING ANY INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES. THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IA (4) EXHAUSTIVELY DEFINES INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITY IN ITS CLAUSE (A) AS ROAD INCLUDING TOLL ROAD, BRIDGE OR A RAIL SYSTEM. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED TWO FOOT OVER BRIDGES AND ROAD SIGNALS. MOST OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ON ACCOUNT OF PUTTING ROAD SIGNALS. IT DOES NOT FIT INTO DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES AS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IA(4). SO, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DEVELOPMENT OF ANY ROAD WITHOUT ITS CONSTRUCTION. ADDING ADDI TIONAL FACILITY CANNOT BE SAID THAT AN INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITY IN THE NATURE OF ROAD AS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IA(4). 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEVELOP ANY INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITY IN THE NATURE OF ROAD AS DE FINED IN EXPLANATION TO SUB - SECTION (4) TO 80 IA OF INCOME TAX AND THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE A.O DENYING THE DEDUCTION TO ASSESSEE UNDER 80 IA NEED NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE . WE UPHOLD THE SAME. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN A.Y. 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06. FACTS BEING SIMILAR AND FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONINGS, THE REJECTION OF CLAIM U/S. 80IA(4) NEED NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. 6. AS A RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED THREE FOOT OVER BRIDGES AND HAS INSTALLED ROAD SIGNAGE FOR THE INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. THE MAJOR PART OF INCOME DURING THE YEAR WAS RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF EXECUTION OF WORK OF ROAD SIGNAGE. THUS, THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ONE ADJUDICATED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE GROUP CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY DEFINED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IA(4). TH US, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(4 ). 7 ITA NO.562 /PUN/2015 A.Y. 2011 - 12 6 . A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS SHOW THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ONE ALREADY ADJUDICATED BY CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO TAKE A D IFFERENT VIEW . F OLLOWING THE ORDER OF CO - OR DINATE BENCH, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(4) IN RESPECT OF CONSTRUCTION OF FOOT - OVER BRIDGES AND INSTALLATION OF ROAD SIGNAGES AS THEY DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF INFRASTRUCTU RE FACILITY WITHIN THE MEAN ING OF SECTION 80I A (4) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 7 . IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 201 7 AFTER HEARING OF THE APPEAL. SD/ - SD/ - ( . / D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 16 TH OCTOBER , 2017 . SB / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS) - I, PUNE. 4. THE CIT - I, PUNE . 5 . , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6 . / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE.