TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 744
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Tax Act,1961 ("the Act" for short). This was done under the then prevailing Industrial Park Scheme, 2002. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry informed the petitioner on 5.1.2009 that the petitioner should apply under the new Industrial Park Scheme, 2008. The petitioner accordingly applied for approval under application dated 27.1.2009. According to the petitioner, the petitioner completed the development of the industrial park on 5.9.2010 which was well before the extended last date of 31.3.2011 envisaged in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2008. According to the petitioner as many as 182 units were allocated in the industrial park. Entire industrial development and plotting had been completed. The petitioner was therefore, entitled to deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. 3. Case of the petitioner is that the State Government had also framed a scheme for subsidy for setting up industrial park in the State under resolution dated 10.6.2004 of Industries and Mines department. The petitioner had also availed such subsidy benefits upon completion of the development of the industrial park which was examined by the agency appointed by the GIDC. On the basis of certificate issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ussed here) is dated 08.05.2013. In the absence of any specified date of completion in the letter, the certificate can be treated to be valid as on 08.05.2013. Hence, even if this document is relied for ascertaining the date of completion, the same can be inferred to be between 04.03.2012 (date of request by the applicant) and 08.05.2013 (date of issue of certificate). 2 Occupancy certificate dated 17/06/2010 given by AUDA to the one of the unit of the said project. It was issued after verification of the site and after satisfying that the required infrastructure under General Development Control Regulation (GDCR) has been completed This certificate issued by AUDA in Gujarati, is in respect of occupation of the first unit only and does not cover the occupation of 182 units that form part of the entire project. It also gives area related information pertaining to that first unit and not the entire project. The certificate is dated 17.06.2010 and as mentioned in the text, it is based on physical verification by AUDA. The Applicant has placed reliance on this document to contend that the project was completed on 17.06.2010. This is certainly not the pos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to construction of units, which is an important constituent of development work. In para(C), it gives the status of park as Follows "( c) Status of Industrial Park is as follows (1) No of units sold 180 (2) out of which agreement executed 99 (3) Out of which construction is in progress 19 (4) out of which commencement/ production / manufacturing started 04 As can be seen, number of agreements in respect of industrial units executed as on 05.09.2010 is 99 only. This does not necessarily mean that units were actually ready for possession since the agreements can be made for unconstructed or under construction units (The copies of agreements are not on record although the applicant has made such a claim). This is supported by the certificate of AUDA dated 17.06.2010 (at SL No.1 of this table) that only one unit was fit for occupation. Moreover, it specifically mentions that 'Construction in progress' is in respect of 19 units and therefore the completion of project as a whole on that day remains unsubstanti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o make reliance to the four documents already relied upon by the applicant listed in the above table. As discussed above, these documents indicate that project was completed after 31.03.2011 only and not before as claimed by the applicant. iv. AUDA also attached a copy of satellite image of project site available on Google Earth Software. It does not clearly provide the number of units situated therein and it is not known whether these are plots or units. Even if these are presumed to be constructed areas, it is not ascertainable whether these are warehouses, First Aid Centre, Canteen, Sewage Plant etc. constituting the common facility or industrial units. Hence, it has no evidentiary value. v. AUDA's letter also suggests that "the decision regarding the actual date or final completion of said project may be taken at your level.' 15. In view of the above, the only choice that remains with us is to decide the date of completion based on the information contained in the said four documents. As already discussed, after analyzing these documents, the date of completion/occupation is established to be certainly beyond 31.03.2011 and hence the applicant has failed to mee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or decision." 9. In the background of this scheme, the petitioner had claimed the subsidy. The State Level Approval Committee in its meeting dated 28.2.2011 had taken various decisions as can be seen from a letter dated written by the Joint Industries Commissioner (Infrastructure) to the GIDC and other Governmental authorities. In its meeting dated 28.2.2011, the Committee noted that infrastructural development in question was granted approval on 4.9.2006 for the project cost of Rs. 531.92 lacs. The committee perused the report of the joint inspection team in which it was stated that the developer has created infrastructure as per the guidelines. Out of the said investment, Rs. 463.12 lacs is eligible for subsidy and on the basis of which the Committee has recommended that subsidy of Rs. 92.63 lacs be granted. The State Level Approval Committee thereupon resolved to grant subsidy of Rs. 92.63 lacs at the rate of 20% eligible on investment of Rs. 463.12 lacs. 10. On 14.3.2011, the Additional Industries Commissioner conveyed to the petitioner the final approval for the subsidy assistance of Rs. 92.63 lacs sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. 11. On 8.4.2013, the Industrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it was observed that such certificate mentions only one unit out of 102 units which were part of the project. This would mean that as on 17.6.2010 only one unit had occupied the premises. Regarding the completion certificate issued on 5.9.2010 by MARS Planning & Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., it was stated that the agency was appointed by the petitioner and is not a local authority. This certificate also matches with AUDA's certificate dated 17.6.2010 as per which it was found that only one unit was in occupation. Regarding the letter of Industries Commissioner dated 8.4.2013, it was observed that same was in response to the petitioner's letter. In any case, a letter which was issued on 14.3.2013 would throw no light on the question of completion of the project as on 5.9.2010, as claimed by the petitioner. 14. In our opinion CBDT has brought in the element of completion of industrial units on the proposed industrial park instead of completion of the project, a distinction made by this Court in case of Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. v. Padam Singh, Under Secretary and others reported in (2011) 339 ITR 441(Guj). This question had come up in the background of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....steps before 31st March 2006 in furtherance of implementation of the Scheme. To out mind, under the Scheme, the petitioner had fullfilled all the requirements for availing the tax benefits. The petitioner was required to develop the infrastructural facilities. In short, the petitioner was required to setup an Industrial Park with all infrastructural facilities to enable the pharmaceutical industries to setup their units on the plots so allotted. Term "locate" used in subclause (2) of Clause9 of the Scheme must be viewed from the angle of having allocated the plots to the producing industries. In the Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar [2009 Edition], while explaining the term "Locate", it is stated that according to the context the word may be employed as meaning : To ascertain and determine the place of; to state the locality of; to designate the site or place of; to determine the situation or limits. So according to the context it may mean to direct, or to lead to; to fix in place; to select or determine the bounds or place; to set in a particular spot or position; as applied to land, to select, survey, and settle the boundaries of a particular tract of land, or to desi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... catalyst for industrial growth by enabling the intending industries to setup their industry in such a Park. Such manufacturing units or the intending industries were in no way under the control of the petitioner. There can be variety of reasons why such industries may not be able to start their units, such as, nonavailability of funds for setting up of the units, pending approval and clearances from the Government and other agencies and such similar reasons which can be attributed only to the intending industries and not to the petitioner. In fact, the scheme requires that the petitioner not only fulfill but continue to fulfill all conditions of approval assessing the period when the tax benefit is available. If we accept the strict requirements insisted by the respondents, it would mean that not only that to that number of industrial units indicated in the application for approval of Industrial Park must be operational on the last date of expiry of the Scheme, they must continue to operate till the petitioner avails of all the tax benefits. In a given situation, it may happen that the number of units, after initially coming into existence, may have to be closed down for variety o....