TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 406
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... effect from June 1, 2015 on the issue of allow ability of deduction under section 80-IA, proportionate profit earned on the job work done by the sub-contractors and examination of the provisions of section 80-IA(8)/80-IA(10) on the following grounds. 1. That the proceedings under section 263 of the Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax in the instant case for the assessment year 2011-12 have been initiated on account of 'change of opinion' on the basis of the opinion expressed as a result of the audit objection and by taking another opposite view than the view expressed by the Department in response to the audit objection by not accepting the audit objection and defending that the activity of the company is fully covered under section 80-IA(4)(b), which is not permitted by law. 2. That the jurisdiction under section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-I for the assessment year 2011-12 has been wrongly assumed as the Assessing Officer after scrutinising all the details, making enquiries, proper verification and consideration of the entire material on record had allowed the claim of the assessee after due application of mind. The said stand also get....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payment of Rs. 2,92,48,936 in the trading account relating to the project on account of job work done by sub- contract. As per the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax the assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 80-IA on the proportionate profits earned on job work executed by the sub-contractor. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax also noticed that in respect of two projects relating to water supply and Hamirpur bypass, the expenses incurred on freight and carriage, fuel and wages and salary were not in proportion to the receipts from the same and the same had not been examined by the Assessing Officer with reference to the provisions of section 80-IA(8)/80-IA(10) of the Act. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax found that the Assessing Officer had not examined the above issue during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the proceedings under section 263 of the Act were initiated and show-cause notice issued to the assessee which mentioned the discrepancies noted in the assessment order passed as follows : "(i) The assessee-company was awarded a contract by the Himachal Pradesh Government, Irrigation and Public Health Department....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of Kaveri Infrastructure Pvt. Limited/Unipro Techno Infrastructure a similar contract was held as infrastructural contract in the assessment year 2008-09 by another Assessing Officer and also the assessee had been granted certificates for deduction of tax at a lower rate in view of the fact that the contract awarded to it qualified for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. The assessee further argued that the proceedings had been initiated on receipt of the audit objection. The gist of the submissions made by the assessee before the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax are reproduced in paragraph 3.1 of his order, after considering which the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax held that all the above three issues highlighted by him had not been examined by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings and therefore the order had been passed without making enquiries or verification which were necessary for the grant of deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the Act. He therefore held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and accordingly set aside the same with a direction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct. (vi) Power under section 263 cannot be exercised by assessing different interpretation on the same set of facts. 3.1.1 The submissions made by the assessee have been considered. The Explanation to sub-section (13) of section 80-IA has been substituted by the Finance Act, 2009. The Explanation is exclusionary in nature which states that nothing contained in the section will apply in relation to a business referred to in sub-section (4) which is in the nature of works contract awarded by any person (including the Central or State Government). Thus to be eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4), the business should not be of the nature of works contract. It is seen from the records of the assessment proceedings that this aspect has never been examined during the course of assessment and no verifications were made by the Assessing Officer. 3.1.2 As per the provisions of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax may call for and examine the record of any proceedings under this Act and if considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, he may, aft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther claimed that the issue has been considered by the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings though not discussed in the assessment order and that section 80-IA does not expressly debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80-IA. 3.2.1 The provisions of section 80-IA(4) are applicable to any enterprise carrying on the business of developing or operating and maintaining or developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructural facility. The deductions are thus clearly not applicable for the contract which is not carried out by the assessee. This aspect has not been subjected to verification during the assessment proceedings. No such details were called for by the Assessing Officer or submitted by the assessee. Accordingly, even on this issue the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3.3 Regarding the issue mentioned at Sr. No. 3 of the show cause the assessee has claimed that the same was duly examined by the Assessing Officer. It has further been claimed that the provisions of section 80-IA(8) are not applicable. There is nothing on record either in the questionnaire or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eiterated the contentions made before the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax while the learning Departmental representative relied on the order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax. 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax and the documents placed before us. 9. On a perusal of the order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax we find that the first reason for invoking the revisionary powers under section 263 was that the Assessing Officer had not examined the claim of the assessee of deduction under section 80-IA of the Act vis-a- vis the applicability of the Explanation to sub-section (13) of section 80-IA of the Act. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax has held that as per the aforesaid Explanation to the section work contracts are not eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4) and apparently the project undertaken by the assessee is covered under the definition of "works contract". Moreover the Assessing Officer has not examined this aspect during the course of assessment and no verifications were made by the Assessing Officer, therefore, as per the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lumn No. 26, the auditor has shown deduction under Chapter VI-A at 'nil' on the other hand in the computation you have claimed under Chapter VI-A at Rs. 12,11,810. Please explain this. 11. Please state the date on which the company came into existence. As per Form 10CCB annexed with the audit report at paragraph 8 the auditor has mentioned commencement of operation/activity as April 13, 2010. And at paragraph 9 the initial assessment year from when deduction under section 80-IA is for the assessment year 2011- 12. On the other hand, under the detail of fixed assets as on March 31, 2011, you have shown written down value of the fixed asset as on April 1, 2010 at Rs. 1,81,58,128. Please furnish details of how written down value comes to exist on April 1, 2010 when your date of commencement of operation started on April 13, 2010 and show cause why depreciation claimed by you should not be disallowed as it seems that you are furnishing inaccurate particulars. Please also furnish whether you have claimed such exemption under section 80- IA in the previous year also or not ? 12. Further at paragraph 12 of Form 10CCB, you have shown sales tax registration No. in which it has a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;Please refer to the assessment proceedings in the case of Unipro Techno Infrastructure Private Limited, SCO 36, Sector 7, Chandigarh for the assessment year 2011-12, PAN AACFU1025F. The information/documents asked for is as under : 2. The partnership firm of Unipro Techno Infrastructure was converted into private limited company with effect from April 13, 2010 with all its assets and liabilities with the same sales tax registration number. The deduction under section 80-IA was first claimed in the assessment year 2010-11. The year under reference is the second year for claiming deduction under section 80-IA.' (e) The order passed by the Assessing Officer dealing with the issue of 80-IA at paragraphs 3 to 4.2 of the order as follows placed at paper book pages 44 to 52 : '3. The case of the assessee selected under CASS with the reasons that "Assessing Officer to examine the reasons and genuineness for high claim of refund out of TDS". When confronted, the assessee vide its reply dated August 13, 2013, has submitted that in the year 2011- 12 a refund of Rs. 10,47,850 was claimed as a part of the income of the company amounting to Rs. 12,11,810 was exempt under sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counsel for the assessee stated that the relevant queries relating to the eligibility of the claim of the assessee of deduction under section 80-IA was raised by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, due reply was filed by the assessee after considering which and after applying his mind to which the Assessing Officer passed a detailed reply allowing deduction under section 80-IA to the assessee. Thereafter the learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the fact that the view taken by the Assessing Officer in allowing the claim of the assessee under section 80-IA was correct since it was adequately proved before him that the contract awarded to the assessee was a composite contract awarded on build, operate and transfer basis for the execution of which the machinery installed including its components, engineers and labour employed, designing, execution, financing in the form of capital investment, enterprise risk, performance guarantee, etc. was the responsibility of the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the contract in any case could not be said to be a "works contract" for the purpose of Explanation to sub-section (13) t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n : Present : Sh. A. K. Sood, chartered accountant. The learned counsel again submits that the proceedings under section 148 need to be dropped as there was no non-disclosure by the assessee. He has again been told that the case is being proceeded with on the merits as the matter is one of interpretation of the statute. The clarification received from the Executive Engineer, I & PH, Division Barsar, District Hamirpur vide letter dated August 1, 2016 in response to the query under section 133(6) is on record. Perusal of the same shows that the assessee was awarded the complete project contract on BOT basis and no other agency was involved in the same. The learned counsel has also cited Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 10 of 2005 dated December 16, 2005 ([2006] 280 ITR (St.) 1) which though specific to ports interprets section 80-IA as being applicable to projects/structures built under BOT basis. Perusal of clarification received from the Himachal Pradesh Government Department and the language of the contract agreement shows that the activity of the assessee is not in the nature of works contract for the purposes of section 80-IA. It appears that the assessee has impleme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... We have heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax as also the documents placed and referred to before us. 14. The only reason for exercising the revisionary powers under section 263 in the present case is that the Assessing Officer had not examined the claim of the assessee to deduction under section 80-IA(4) vis-a-vis Explanation 13 to the said section which excludes profits earned from works contracts from deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the Act. 15. On this account we are unable to agree with the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax. It is amply clear from the pleadings and documents placed before us by the learned counsel for the assessee that the said issue was raised during assessment proceedings, due inquiries were made and after proper application of mind the Assessing Officer allowed the claim of the assessee. 16. We find that the assessee had filed the return of income claiming deduction under section 80-IA amounting to Rs. 12,11,810. Certificate in Form 10CCB, certifying the assessee's claim of deduction under section 80-IA of the same amount was also filed giving all details o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the Executive Engineer, IPH, District Kangra were made during the assessment proceedings by the Assessing Officer. Further all necessary explanations regarding the claim of deduction along with evidences were placed by the assessee to prove its claim of deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. Therefore, for all purposes, it can be said that the claim of the assessee had been duly verified during the assessment proceedings. Clearly the contention of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax that no enquiries were made is incorrect. 19. We may add that it cannot also be a case of inadequate enquiry. All explanations and evidences were placed before the Assessing Officer to explain the nature of the contract and demonstrate that it was not merely a "works contract". We fail to understand what further inquiry was required to be made in the case to settle the issue of the nature of contract or for that matter how the present inquiry was not adequate to arrive at the correct conclusion. Moreover we find that even the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax has not spelt out the same in his order. Even before us the learned Departmental representative has failed to show h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gement also. The Assessing Officer in that case also noted that such arrangements were typical for infrastructure development projects of the Government and cannot be seen as mere works contract. All these facts have not been rebutted by the learned Departmental representative before us. Therefore, without any doubt it can be said the view taken by the Assessing Officer with regard to the claim of the assessee under section 80-IA of the Act was a plausible view. 21. Interestingly, we find that all the explanations and evidences which were filed before the Assessing Officer by the assessee to support its claim of deduction under section 80-IA was also filed before the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax and despite so there is not a whisper in the entire order as to how the view of the Assessing Officer that it was an infrastructure project and not works contract, is incorrect. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax has not referred to a single document, clause or otherwise of the agreement to lend credence to his view. The entire thrust of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax in exercising revisionary powers is that adequate enquiry vis-a-vis the cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fulfil a condition precedent to the grant of a deduction in another assessment year. That would amount to an Assessing Officer reopening an assessment in respect of another assessment year without following the provisions of the Act." 23. The learned Departmental representative, on the other hand relying upon paragraph 11 of the order stated that certain issues could have been disturbed in the succeeding years also. The learned Departmental representative stated that merely because the assessee had been allowed the claim in the first year did not mean that the same for all purposes could not be disturbed in the succeeding years at all. 24. We have gone through the order of the jurisdictional High Court relied upon by both the parties and find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee. There is no dispute about the fact that in the preceding assessment year, i.e. the assessment year 2010-11, which was the first year of claim of deduction under section 80-IA, the assessee was allowed the same under section 143(3) of the Act. This means that for all purposes the claim of the assessee having been examined in the light of the parameters of eligibility laid down u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m of the assessee had not been duly examined by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. The learned counsel for the assessee further stated that the job work done by sub-contractors was not a separate contract but sub-contract of the main project awarded to it and the assessee as per the provisions of section 80- IA was entitled to claim deduction of the entire profits earned by it on the project executed on infrastructure development. The fact that it had sub- contracted a part of the work did not affect its claim of deduction of the entire profits and the sub-contract work could not be treated as separate for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. 28. The learned Departmental representative, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax and stated that the profits earned on the sub-contract work were not eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act and the same having not been examined by the Assessing Officer an error had crept in the order of the Assessing Officer causing prejudice to the Revenue by allowing the assessee's claim of deduction of profits under section 80-IA on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reason given by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax for exercising revisionary powers under section 263 is that while the receipts from the water supply project and Hamirpur bypass project in the ratio of 2.8 : 1, the expenses incurred on the freight and carriage, fuel and wages and salary are comparatively higher in the case of the Hamirpur bypass project and the comparative details have not been examined by the Assessing Officer vis-a-vis the provisions of section 80- IA(8)/80-IA(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, causing error in the order of the Assessing Officer and prejudice to that extent. 31. The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated his arguments made on account of point No. 1 raised by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax while the learned Departmental representative relied upon the order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax in this regard. 32. Having heard the arguments of both the parties as also the issue raised by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax we find from a bare perusal of the same that it is not evident as to what is the error that has occurred in the order. In fact the learned Principal Commissioner o....