2025 (3) TMI 1567 - HC - Income Tax

Hotel tax break claim for 'new' undertaking denied as business was reconstructed from an existing hotel, not newly set up.

Deduction under s. 80ID was denied on the ground that the 'new' hotel was formed by transfer/reconstruction of an existing hotel business rather than ... Deduction u/s 80ID - hotel formed by splitting, reconstruction, transfer of an old hotel by renaming Into a new hotel - Tribunal came to hold that this was clearly a case which amounted to a transfer of an existing business and thus the benefit of Section 80ID not being liable to be claimed by the appellant. HELD THAT:- As per the recordal of facts as they appear in the original order of assessment, we note that Mr. Bharti Sehgal and Mr. Sunil Kumar are stated to have purchased the industrial plot over which the hotel ultimately came to be established on 21 March 2007 and thereafter commenced construction during FY 2007-08. Hotel Rani Mahal was operated by Mr. Bharti Sehgal through Mr. Ramesh Bhatia on rent/lease during the FY 2008-09. It was thereafter let out to Mr. Ramesh Bhatia in AY 2009-10 and subsequently sold on 08 June 2009 by Mr. Bharti Sehgal and Mr. Sunil Kumar to Mr. Ramesh Bhatia, the Karta of the HUF and his wife, Ms. Veebha Bhatia. It was on the aforesaid basis that the AO had come to conclude that a hotel in the name and style of Hotel Rani Mahal existed and was being operated during FY 2007-08 as well as a part of FY 2008-09. These facts have remained uncontroverted before us. Appellant has failed to establish that the concurrent findings and conclusions on facts as rendered by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal can possibly be said to be perverse. We, consequently, answer the questions as posited in the negative and against the appellant/assessee. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether the concurrent factual findings that the hotel at Agra was an already existing hotel (constructed and operated as 'Hotel Rani Mahal' prior to April 2008 and functioning until October 2008) and was thereafter continued/renamed by the assessee, were unsupported by the record so as to be perverse. (ii) Whether, on the proved facts, the assessee's hotel business at Agra was 'formed' by transfer/splitting/reconstruction of an existing business so as to disentitle it from deduction under Section 80ID. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Perversity of findings regarding prior construction and continued functioning of the earlier hotel Legal framework: The Court confined itself to examining whether the Tribunal's and first appellate authority's concurrent findings of fact could be interfered with as being perverse, i.e., lacking any supporting material on record. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the record, as reflected in the assessment findings and relied upon by the appellate authorities, showed purchase of the plot in March 2007, construction of the hotel during FY 2007-08, operation of an existing hotel during FY 2007-08 and part of FY 2008-09, and a lease arrangement commencing 01 October 2008 followed by sale of the property (including furniture and fixtures) in June 2009. The Court treated these facts as uncontroverted. Conclusions: The Court held that the appellant failed to establish that the concurrent factual findings were perverse. The challenge to the Tribunal's findings on the timing of construction and continued functioning of the earlier hotel was rejected. Issue (ii): Whether the assessee's hotel was 'formed' by transfer/splitting/reconstruction, disentitling deduction under Section 80ID Legal framework: The Court proceeded on the basis that eligibility under Section 80ID depends upon satisfaction of the statutory conditions, including that the business should not be formed by splitting up/reconstruction or by transfer of an existing business. The Court assessed the applicability of these conditions on the established facts. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the factual premise affirmed by the authorities: a hotel had already been constructed and operated at the same premises; it was first leased to the assessee and thereafter sold to persons connected with the assessee, with the business continuing under a different name. The Tribunal's conclusion that the assessee's business 'came into being' through the lease arrangement and subsequent surrender/sale of interest, amounting to transfer/continuation of an existing hotel business, was treated as a factual and inferential determination drawn from record material. Conclusions: The Court upheld the view that the assessee's hotel at Agra was not a qualifying 'new' hotel for Section 80ID purposes because it was, on the concurrent findings, a case of transfer/continuation of an existing hotel business. The substantial questions were answered against the assessee, and the disallowance of deduction was sustained.