2026 (1) TMI 480 - SCH - Income Tax

Infrastructure project execution status-developer vs contractor-for s.80-IA(4) tax deduction; claim upheld, late appeal dismissed.

Deduction under s. 80-IA(4) turned on whether the assessee executed works as a mere contractor or developed eligible infrastructure facilities. The HC ... Disallowance u/s. 80IA(4) - Whether assessee is a contractor or a developer of infrastructure facilities - delay of 358 days in filing the Special Leave Petition As decided by HC [2024 (6) TMI 691 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] ITAT has not erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s. 80IA(4) by holding that the assessee is not a contractor but a developer of infrastructure facilities and is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) - Decided in favour of assessee. HELD THAT:- There is a delay of 358 days in filing the Special Leave Petition which has not been explained satisfactorily. Moreover, the relied upon judgment on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed, has not been appealed against and has attained finality. Special Leave Petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Issues: (i) Whether a Special Leave Petition filed with a delay of 358 days, without a satisfactory explanation, can be dismissed on the ground of delay; (ii) Whether reliance on a judgment which has not been appealed against and has attained finality precludes grant of relief in the Special Leave Petition.Issue (i): Whether the Special Leave Petition should be dismissed for unexplained delay of 358 days.Analysis: The petition was filed after a delay of 358 days and the delay was not explained satisfactorily in the record. The absence of a sufficient explanation for such a substantial delay was treated as a separate ground for refusing discretionary relief under the Special Leave jurisdiction. The tribunal considered the unexplained delay in conjunction with other grounds and concluded that discretionary relief should not be exercised.Conclusion: In favour of Assessee.Issue (ii): Whether reliance on a precedent judgment that has attained finality and which was not appealed against bars the grant of relief in the Special Leave Petition.Analysis: The impugned order was founded upon an earlier judgment which was not challenged further and has attained finality. Given the finality of that judgment, the petition could not successfully relitigate the same question; the prior adjudication was treated as conclusively binding for the purposes of the petition.Conclusion: In favour of Assessee.Final Conclusion: No discretionary relief is available to the petitioner on the grounds considered; the challenge to the impugned order is rejected and the impugned order retains its operative effect.