Tribunal allows deduction under section 80IA(4) for toll road project

Jaypee Infratech Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax

Jaypee Infratech Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax - TMI Issues Involved:

1. Whether the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80IA(4) falls under clause (a) or (b) of the Explanation to section 80IA(4)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Whether the AO correctly treated the subject year as falling in the eligible period under section 80IA(2) of the Act.
3. Whether the AO took a plausible and sustainable view by allowing the assessee's claimed deduction under clause (a) of the Explanation to section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act.
4. Whether the assessment order was unsustainable and not in accordance with law and passed without application of mind.
5. Whether the CIT was in error by invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act without a decisive conclusion.
6. Whether the CIT exercised powers under section 263 of the Act validly on the issues of interest on FDs and depreciation which were not mentioned in the notice under section 263.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Applicability of Clause (a) or (b) of Explanation to Section 80IA(4)(i)
The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IA(4) for developing an Expressway, which it argued falls under clause (a) as 'road including toll road'. The CIT contended it falls under clause (b) as a 'highway project including housing or other activities'. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's activities indeed fall under clause (a) since the project was specifically for a toll road with controlled access and exit points, and the right to collect toll fees was granted. The development of land adjacent to the Expressway was an integral part of the project and not merely housing or other activities.

Issue 2: Eligible Period Under Section 80IA(2)
The CIT argued that the deduction is only available once the infrastructure facility begins to operate, which was in 2012. The assessee contended that the business operations started in 2007, and the income derived from the business of developing the infrastructure facility should be eligible for deduction from that point. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that the development of infrastructure is a continuous process and the deduction should be available from the commencement of business operations.

Issue 3: Plausibility and Sustainability of AO's View
The AO's view that the assessee's claim falls under clause (a) was considered reasonable and sustainable. The Tribunal held that the AO took a plausible view supported by the facts and the law, and the CIT's differing opinion did not make the AO's order erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

Issue 4: Application of Mind by AO
The Tribunal noted that the AO made detailed inquiries and adjudicated the issue with a detailed note sheet entry. The AO's decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts and the law, and thus, it could not be said that the AO failed to apply his mind.

Issue 5: Validity of CIT's Invocation of Section 263
The CIT's order was found to be lacking a decisive conclusion. The CIT did not conclusively determine whether the assessee's claim fell under clause (a) or (b) and left the matter open-ended. The Tribunal held that the CIT must reach a final decision and not merely set aside the assessment for fresh examination.

Issue 6: Revision on Issues Not Mentioned in Notice
The CIT revised the assessment on the issues of interest on FDs and depreciation, which were not mentioned in the notice under section 263. The Tribunal held that it is not permissible for the CIT to revise the assessment on grounds not mentioned in the notice, citing judicial precedents. Thus, the revision on these issues was invalid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the CIT's order under section 263, holding that the AO's view was reasonable and sustainable, and the CIT did not validly assume jurisdiction to revise the assessment. The assessee's appeal was allowed.