2021 (9) TMI 798 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Granted for Delayed Filing: Deduction Approved for Truck Terminal under Section 80IA

M/s. Thakur Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dy. CIT, Panvel Circle, Dist Raigad

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, condoning the delay in filing and directing the AO to grant the deduction under Section 80IA for the truck terminal. The ... Disallowance of the deduction u/s 80IA - assessee was awarded a project by CIDCO to construct a parking lot called truck terminal having facilities on BOT basis - HELD THAT:- As decided in M/S. THAKUR INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT-PANVEL CIRCLE, RAIGAD [2021 (1) TMI 1154 - ITAT MUMBAI] disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of parking slot which was constructed under agreement with CIDCO. Accordingly, we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the deduction under section 80IA in respect of the parking facility. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. Issues Involved:1. Delay in filing the appeal.2. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act for the construction of a truck terminal.Detailed Analysis:1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order dated 06.03.2018, with a delay of 427 days. The delay was attributed to a non-functional email of the consulting chartered accountant, which led to the appeal not being filed within the stipulated 60 days. The assessee argued that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Revenue opposed the condonation, arguing that the assessee failed to explain the delay adequately. However, the Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision, found the delay non-deliberate and condoned it, allowing the appeal to proceed.2. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IA:The core issue was whether the truck terminal constructed by the assessee under a BOT (Build, Operate, Transfer) agreement with CIDCO qualified as an 'infrastructure facility' under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. The AO and CIT(A) had denied the deduction, arguing that the truck terminal was not part of a highway project.The Tribunal noted that the issue was previously decided in favor of the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Tribunal examined the terms of the contract with CIDCO and concluded that the truck terminal, despite being a standalone project, was integral to the highway infrastructure. This conclusion was supported by the amended definition of 'infrastructure facility' in the Finance Act, 2001, which includes housing or other activities integral to a highway project.The Tribunal also referenced the decision in Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vintage Advertising Pvt. Ltd., where bus shelters and foot overbridges were deemed eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal found that the truck terminal, similar to bus shelters and foot overbridges, was functionally necessary for the highway infrastructure.The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's argument that the income from advertising on bus shelters and foot overbridges did not qualify for deduction under Section 80IA, as this issue was not raised by the AO or CIT(A) and was not part of the grounds of appeal. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's entitlement to the deduction, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and directing the AO to allow the deduction for the truck terminal.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, condoning the delay in filing and directing the AO to grant the deduction under Section 80IA for the truck terminal, aligning with the precedent set in the assessee's own case for previous years. The decision emphasized the functional necessity of the truck terminal as part of the highway infrastructure, thus qualifying it for the deduction.