2022 (8) TMI 1426 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Delhi affirms Assessee's deduction under section 80IA, stresses evidence & consistency

DCIT Circle – 4 (2) Delhi Versus Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd.

The ITAT Delhi upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the Assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed ... Deduction u/s 80IA (4) - Claim denied by AO but allowed by CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- We find that CIT(A) in his order has reproduced the findings of Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 [2019 (2) TMI 1429 - ITAT DELHI], [2018 (11) TMI 1322 - ITAT DELHI] wherein it was held that assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. Since the facts are identical to that of earlier years, the assessee is eligible for claiming the deduction. Revenue has not pointed to any distinguishing facts of the case in the year under consideration and nor has placed any material to demonstrate that the order of Delhi Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 has been set aside/stayed/over ruled by the Higher Judicial forum. In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus dismiss the grounds of the Revenue. Issues:Allowability of claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act.Analysis:The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary issue was the allowability of the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act by the Assessee. The Assessee, a company engaged in warehouse management at IGI Airport, New Delhi, had filed its return of income declaring an amount which was later revised during assessment. The Assessee claimed a deduction of Rs.15,93,69,681/- u/s 80IA of the Act, which the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed. The AO contended that the Assessee had not entered into an agreement with a statutory authority, a prerequisite for claiming the deduction. The Assessee, however, argued that it was eligible for the deduction based on agreements with relevant entities. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the Assessee, citing previous Tribunal decisions in favor of the Assessee for earlier assessment years. The Revenue challenged this decision before the ITAT Delhi.The ITAT Delhi, after hearing the submissions of both parties, upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had correctly relied on previous Tribunal decisions where the Assessee was found eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The ITAT emphasized that the Revenue failed to provide any distinguishing facts or evidence to counter the previous decisions or show that they had been overruled by a higher judicial forum. Therefore, the ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order and upheld the allowability of the deduction claimed by the Assessee. The appeal of the Revenue was consequently dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the Assessee.In conclusion, the ITAT Delhi's judgment clarified the eligibility criteria for claiming deductions under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. It highlighted the importance of consistency in decisions, especially when facts remain unchanged from previous cases. The judgment underscored the significance of providing substantial evidence to challenge established precedents and emphasized the need for a clear demonstration of any changes in legal interpretations to warrant a different outcome.