2024 (6) TMI 457 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee wins section 80IA(4) deduction claims filed under section 153A notices with timely Form 10CCB submission

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1 Versus ABCI Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1 Versus ABCI Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata - TMI Issues Involved:1. Delay in filing the appeal.2. Admissibility of deduction u/s 80-IA not claimed in original returns.3. Classification of assessee as a 'Developer of Infrastructure' or 'Works Contractor.'Summary:1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:The revenue's appeal was delayed by 417 days, with the reason cited being the transfer posting of the undersigned officer. The Tribunal found the reason to be general and vague, not justifying the delay. Despite this, the Tribunal decided to take up the appeal on its merits due to the issue being covered by a prior decision of the coordinate bench.2. Admissibility of Deduction u/s 80-IA:The revenue contended that the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80-IA for AY 2020-21 was inadmissible as it was not claimed in the original returns for the preceding years. The Tribunal noted that the coordinate bench had already decided this issue in favor of the assessee for AYs 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The Tribunal held that the returns filed u/s 153A substituted the original returns, allowing the assessee to make new claims, including deductions u/s 80-IA, even if not claimed in the original returns. The Tribunal supported this view with various judicial precedents, emphasizing that the returns filed u/s 153A should be treated as returns filed u/s 139, allowing all legitimate claims.3. Classification as 'Developer of Infrastructure' or 'Works Contractor':The revenue argued that the assessee should be classified as a 'Works Contractor' and not a 'Developer of Infrastructure,' which would affect the eligibility for deduction u/s 80-IA. The Tribunal referred to the coordinate bench's decision, which had already concluded that the assessee was a 'Developer of Infrastructure Facilities' and not a 'Works Contractor.' This classification had reached finality as it was not contested by the revenue in prior appeals.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the coordinate bench's findings that allowed the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80-IA and confirmed the classification of the assessee as a 'Developer of Infrastructure Facilities.' The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the issues had already been comprehensively addressed and decided in favor of the assessee in prior years.