Section 153A additions require incriminating materials from search; infrastructure project deductions denied for machinery hiring services

ITAT Rajkot held that in unabated assessments under section 153A, AO cannot make additions without incriminating materials found during search. For assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, all additions were directed to be deleted as no incriminating material was discovered. Regarding section 80-IA(4) deduction, assessee's appeal was allowed for infrastructure development projects. However, for AY 2009-10, deduction was denied as supplying earthmoving machinery on hiring basis to GMDC did not constitute executing eligible infrastructure projects. The tribunal noted COVID-19 pandemic justified delayed order pronouncement beyond ninety days.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment orders under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of deductions claimed under section 80IA(4) for infrastructure projects.
3. Classification of the assessee as a developer or a contractor.
4. Disallowance under sections 40A(2)(b), 40A(3), and 36(1)(va) of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Assessment Orders under Section 153A:
The primary issue was whether the Assessing Officer (AO) could frame assessments under section 153A for years where no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal noted that for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, which were unabated as of the search date, the AO could not make additions without incriminating material. This was supported by the judgments in *PCIT vs. Saumya Construction* and *CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation*. Consequently, additions made by the AO for these years were directed to be deleted.

2. Disallowance of Deductions under Section 80IA(4):
The assessee claimed deductions under section 80IA(4) for various infrastructure projects. The AO disallowed these claims, treating the assessee as a contractor rather than a developer. The CIT(A) partly allowed the claims, recognizing the assessee as a developer for some projects but not for others. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee was indeed a developer for several projects based on the nature of the work, financial involvement, and responsibilities undertaken. This was consistent with the Tribunal's earlier decision in the assessee's case for AY 2007-08.

3. Classification as Developer or Contractor:
The Tribunal examined the nature of the contracts and the responsibilities undertaken by the assessee. It was found that the assessee was responsible for designing, developing, and maintaining the infrastructure projects, which qualified it as a developer. This classification was upheld for most projects, except for a few where the assessee acted as a sub-contractor or merely provided machinery on hire.

4. Disallowance under Sections 40A(2)(b), 40A(3), and 36(1)(va):
The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of these disallowances, as the primary issue of the validity of assessments under section 153A was decided in favor of the assessee for the relevant years. Therefore, the disallowances made under these sections were also directed to be deleted.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee for AY 2005-06 and 2006-07, directing the deletion of additions made without incriminating material. For AY 2008-09 and 2009-10, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, recognizing the assessee as a developer for most projects and allowing the corresponding deductions under section 80IA(4). The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.

---