ACIT 8(3)(OSD), MUMBAI V. KORATALAIYAR BRIDGE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 7647/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70950 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-03-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS BHAVNA YASHROY
• Keywords: Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUM BAI .. , , BEFORE SHRI I. P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 7647/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) JT. CIT 8(2) (OSD), R. NO.216-A, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI / VS. KORATALAIYAR BRIDGE PVT. LTD. A-53, MIDC, MARO INDL. AREA, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI - 400 093 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AABCK 0083 H ( /APPELLANT ) : ( !' / RESPONDENT ) # / APPELLANT BY : MRS. BHAVNA YASHROY !' $ # / RESPONDENT BY : NONE % &'( $ )* / DATE OF HEARING : 27.08.2013 +,- $ )* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.08.2013 . / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-18, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SH ORT) DATED 19.08.2011, ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S .143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A. Y.) 2006-07 VIDE ORDER DATED 04.11.2008. 2 ITA NO. 7647/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2006-07) JT. CIT VS. KORATALAIYAR BRIDGE PVT. LTD. 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE/ RESPONDENT WHEN ITS APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, NOR IS THERE ANY ADJOURNMEN T APPLICATION ON RECORD. EVEN ON THE EARLIER TWO OCCASIONS THERE HAS BEEN NO REPRESENTAT ION BY THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAS ALSO NOT CARED OR CAUSED TO FILE THE POWER OF ATTORNEY OR TH E LETTER OF AUTHORITY ON RECORD. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS DECIDED TO PROCEED WITH THE H EARING IN THE MATTER, AND DISPOSE OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ON MERITS. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS THE ALLOWANCE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IA OF THE ACT, DENIED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN CLAIMED PER THE RETURN O F INCOME OR THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME, IN APPEAL BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING & MAINTENANCE OF A BRIDGE ON BO OT BASIS, IS OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IA. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM MADE DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE ITS LETTERS DATED 23.09.2008 AND 27.09.2008, F URNISHING THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10CCB, I.E., AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISION, ALONG WITH. IN FACT, THE DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID PROVISION HAD BEEN ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT B OTH FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING (A.Y. 2005-06) AND THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING (A.Y. 2007-08) YEAR, AND AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ITSELF. ACCORDINGLY, RELYING ON TH E DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAMCO INTERNATIONAL [2011] 332 ITR 306 (P& H) AND BY THE HON'BLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BALMUKUND ACHARYA VS. DY. CIT [2009] 310 ITR 310 (BOM), HE ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. THE LD. DR COULD NOT BRING TO OUR NOTICE ANY INFIRMITY QUA THE PRIMARY AND/OR THE MATERIAL FACTS IMPINGING ON THE ASSESSEES ELIGIBILITY FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80- IA. IN FACT, DEDUCTION THERE-UNDER STANDS ALLOWED BOTH FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING AND THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING YEAR. THE COMPANY, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, IS REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT, DEVELOP AND OPERATE A BRIDGE DURING THE CONCESSION PERIOD, WHICH IS TO EXPIRE 3 ITA NO. 7647/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2006-07) JT. CIT VS. KORATALAIYAR BRIDGE PVT. LTD. ON 11.01.2009. THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE MAINTENANCE COSTS ARE TO BE MET AND RECOUPED FROM THE TOLL RECEIPT. THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE ASSES SEES CLAIM FOR THE IMPUGNED DEDUCTION BEING MANIFEST FROM THE RECORD, ITS NON-CLAIM PER T HE RETURN OF INCOME; THE INCOME BEING REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, IS RENDERED AS OF NO CONSEQUENCE. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY EITHER IN LAW OR ON FACTS IN THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BY THE LD. CIT(A), DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S.80-IA IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, I.E., AS EXIGIBLE UNDER THE LAW. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . /-)0 ' $ / $ ) 12 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON AUGUST 27, 20 13 SD/- SD/- (I. P. BANSAL) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % ( MUMBAI; 3& DATED : 27.08.2013 '.&../ ROSHANI , SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT 3. % 4) ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. % 4) / CIT - CONCERNED 5. 7'89 !)&:; , * :;- , % ( / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9<= >( / GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , % ( / ITAT, MUMBAI