Court directs reevaluation of petitioner's application under Income Tax Act, providing new deadline for submission and decision.

The court set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's application under section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Income Tax Act and directed the authority to reconsider the additional documents submitted by the petitioner before making a fresh decision. The petitioner was instructed to provide the representation dated 21.4.2014 and accompanying documents to the authority by 25.9.2017, with a new decision expected by 31.12.2017.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting application for notification under section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting their application for issuing a notification under section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner claimed eligibility for deduction under section 80IA(4) as they had developed an industrial park before 31.3.2011. The competent authority rejected the application on 13.5.2014 after detailed correspondence with the petitioner. The authority doubted the petitioner's fulfillment of essential requirements for exemption related to industrial park development and maintenance. The petitioner argued that they responded to a notice with a detailed representation and provided documents on 21.4.2014, which were not considered in the rejection order. The authority claimed no receipt of such communication. The impugned order was based on the lack of response to notices dated 25.2.2014 and 16.4.2014, thus not considering the additional documents submitted by the petitioner.

The impugned order did not consider the additional documents submitted by the petitioner along with their representation dated 21.4.2014, as the authority claimed no response to earlier notices. The petitioner failed to provide conclusive proof of the submission of documents before the authority. However, since no time limit was fixed for document submission, the court requested the authority to reconsider the additional documents before making a fresh decision. Terminating the petitioner's case without considering the additional documents would be unjust. Therefore, the court set aside the order dated 13.5.2014 and directed the authority to pass a fresh order after reviewing the additional documents submitted by the petitioner.

The court ordered the setting aside of the impugned order dated 13.5.2014 and instructed the authority to review the additional documents provided by the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to supply a copy of the representation dated 21.4.2014 with accompanying documents to the authority by 25.9.2017. The authority was required to make a fresh decision preferably by 31.12.2017 based on the new information provided. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

---