TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 755
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rial Park Scheme, 2002. The Assessing Officer rejected the deduction claimed u/s 80 IA(4) citing the following reasons:- i) the claim of the assessee that the Industrial Park was operational on 15-102004 by a lease agreement dated 21- 9-2004 with Satyam Computers Services Limited (SCSL in short) is not based on facts. ii) The assessee has not kept 42 units operational even till 31- 10-2006 wherein he has made request for reducing the number to three units. iii) The assessee has sold 199345 sft in the year 2004-05 and 40319 sft., in the year 2005-06 without being authorized to sell or eliminate property sans fulfilling the basic conditions. 4. The assessee being aggrieved the disallowance claim made u/s 80 IA(4) challenged the same by preferring an appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) allowed the claim of the assessee by holding in the following manner:- "The facts and arguments were considered diligently as there were lot of approvals and notifications involved therein. Even though, the DIPP has fixed the number of units at 42 in their original letter dated 21-9-2004, the same has been reduced by their letter issued in 2007 based on the request of the assessee. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ministry of Commerce and Industry, vide its letter dated 17-2-2005 has given approval to the assessee for setting up an industrial park in terms of industrial park scheme, 2002. Subsequently, the assessee applied to the Ministry vide its letter dated 7-1-2006, for reduction of the number of units to be set up in industrial park. The Ministry of Finance (CBDT) notified the assessee's case in the Gazette of India vide Notification dated 21-8-2006 bearing No.216/2006 (F.No.178/72/2006-ITA-I). The important conditions which are relevant to avail the benefit u/s 80IA(4)(iii) are as follows:- Clause (1) (vii) Minimum number of industrial units : 30 (viii) Total investment proposed: Rs.75 crores (x) investment of infrastructure Development including investment On built up space for industrial use : Rs.61.80 crores (xi) Proposed date of commencement of the (xii) Industrial Park : September, 2005 Clause 6: The tax benefits under the Act .can be availed of' only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 (vii) bf this Notification, are located in the Industrial Park. Clause 7: M/ s Meenakshi Infrastructures (P) Ltd., Hyderabad shall continue to operate the industrial par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 units were to be located in the industrial park area Now, the contention of the learned AR that though the CBDT issued notification on 21-08- 2006, therein mentioned that the industrial park as approved by the Central Govt. as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein and the date of commencement of the industrial park is mentioned as "before September 2005'. Thus, it means that the industrial park established by the assessee! is commenced from Sept.2005 and it is as approved by the Government. We find merit in this argument of the learned AR. The Central Government approved the date of commencement of the industrial park as commenced fromSeptember2005. The notification is w.e.f. the commencement of the industrial park as approved by Central Government i.e. from September, 2005. Thus approval covers the assessment year 2006-2:007. The date of notification is irrelevant and it cannot be considered as cohc1usive and only the contents therein is having very significance on the fact that the notification notifying the industrial park commenced in September 2005 and 'as approved by the Central Government. The notification was issued only for the purpose of notifying the industria....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... conditions u/s 8OIA(4)(iii} are satisfied. Further the scheme provides for automatic approval, also it is not unlikely that in such a case, there is no specific Central Govt. approval as it is not necessary, so that a special approval by the Board recording its own satisfaction may become necessary, though the law does not specifically provides for board approval even in such cases. The notification from the CBDT being a formality, after the approval by Ministry of Commerce and Industry under the scheme. The task of the CBDT prescribed under the Rule .and not under the Act, even the issue of notification also without formal application by the assessee, but as a mere a follow up action by the Ministry of Commerce recognizing it as satisfying the conditions under the Software Technology Park Scheme, being so, the approval u/s 80lA cannot be said effective from the date of notification by the CBDT. 8.1 Further, CIT(A) observed that because of the order of the earlier assessment year 2005-06 in asses4ee's own case on the same issue, he is not in a position to entertain the claim of the, assessee in the assessment year under consideration also. In the assessment year under consideratio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t be so construed, If possible, that absurdity and mischief may be avoided. There are many situations where the construction suggested on behalf of the revenue would lead to a wholly unreasonable result which could never have been intended by the Legislature. In such circumstances, we have to try to arrive at an interpretation which avoids this absurdity and mischief and makes the provision rational and sensible. It is now well settled rule of construction that where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result, which could never have been intended by the legislature, the Court may modify the language used by the legislature or even do some violence to it, so as to achieve the obvious intention of the legislature and produce a rational construction. The court may also in such a case read into a statutory provision a condition which thought not expressed, is implicit as constituting the basic assumption underlying the statutory provision. In our opinion, having regard to this well recognized rule of interpretation a fair and reasonable construction of the provision of section 80IA(4)(iii) could be read into it a condition t....