ITAT Allows 31-Day Delay in CO Filing; Assessee Wins Partial Appeal for Infrastructure Deduction.

The ITAT condoned the 31-day delay in the Department's CO filing, admitting it for merits disposal. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, granting deduction u/s 80-IA(4) as it met the necessary conditions for developing infrastructure facilities. The Department's CO was dismissed. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow project maintenance expenses and recompute interest u/s 234B based on redetermined income.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing of Cross-Objection (CO) by the Department.
2. Allowability of deduction u/s 80-IA(4) for the assessee.
3. Ownership requirement for claiming deduction u/s 80-IA(4).
4. Agreement with Government for developing infrastructure facility.
5. Transfer of infrastructure facility to the Government.
6. Applicability of the condition of operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on or after 1st April 1995.
7. Nature of the infrastructure facility developed by the assessee.
8. Allowance of project maintenance expenses.
9. Charging of interest u/s 234B.

Summary:

1. Delay in filing of Cross-Objection (CO) by the Department:
The CO was filed with a delay of 31 days. The Departmental Representative contended that the delay was due to the Assessing Officer being busy with time-barring assessments and holding additional charge. The assessee had no objection to the CO being admitted. The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the CO for disposal on merits.

2. Allowability of deduction u/s 80-IA(4):
The assessee, engaged in the execution of civil contracts, claimed a deduction of Rs. 18.47 crores u/s 80-IA(4) for developing infrastructure facilities. The CIT(A) upheld the denial of the deduction, stating that the assessee was not a developer but a civil contractor. The Tribunal, however, held that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for deduction u/s 80-IA(4) as it developed the infrastructure facilities, mobilized resources, and bore significant risks.

3. Ownership requirement for claiming deduction u/s 80-IA(4):
The Tribunal clarified that the requirement is that the enterprise developing the infrastructure facility should be owned by an Indian company, not the infrastructure facility itself. The assessee, being a company registered in India, fulfilled this condition.

4. Agreement with Government for developing infrastructure facility:
The assessee had entered into agreements with the Government of Maharashtra and APSEB for developing the Koyna and Srisailam projects, respectively. The Tribunal found that this condition was fulfilled.

5. Transfer of infrastructure facility to the Government:
The Tribunal held that the transfer of the infrastructure facility by the assessee to the Government was fulfilled by handing over possession of the developed facility. The Tribunal rejected the Department's contention that there was no transfer since the land always belonged to the Government.

6. Applicability of the condition of operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on or after 1st April 1995:
The Tribunal held that this condition is applicable only to enterprises maintaining and operating the infrastructure facility, not to those merely developing it. Therefore, this condition was not applicable to the assessee.

7. Nature of the infrastructure facility developed by the assessee:
The Tribunal found that the facilities developed by the assessee fell within the category of water supply and irrigation projects, as defined in the Explanation to section 80-IA(4). The Tribunal rejected the Department's contention that the assessee developed only a part of the project and not the whole.

8. Allowance of project maintenance expenses:
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction for project maintenance expenses in the year under consideration, limited to the extent of expenditure actually incurred by the assessee in the subsequent year, following the decision in the assessee's own case for assessment year 1986-87.

9. Charging of interest u/s 234B:
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow consequential relief by recomputing the interest u/s 234B in accordance with the income redetermined on giving effect to the appellate order.

Conclusion:
The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the Department's cross-objection was dismissed.

---