TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial park for providing facilities to information technology/information technology enabled services sector and operation and maintenance of said industrial park. 3. It is submitted that the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 was notified by the Central Government of India in Gazette of India dated April 1, 2002 vide Notification No. 354(E) of 2002 ([2002] 255 ITR (St.) 125 ). The predecessor firm of the petitioner filed form IPS-1 before the second respondent for the approval of industrial park under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 on February 11, 2006. The second petitioner granted approval for the industrial park to the predecessor-firm of the petitioner under the Scheme 2002 with certain conditions which was communicated to the petitioner through letter dated July 25, 2006. The terms and conditions stipulated in the said approval order was indeed accepted by the petitioner's predecessor and a request was made before respondent No. 1 to issue notification under rule 18C(4) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("Rules for short"). Subsequent to change in the constitution of the erstwhile partnership firm to company, the petitioner requested respondent No.1 to issue notification under r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regularly filing the quarterly statements before respondent No. 2. The action of respondent No. 1 directing respondent No. 2 to withdraw the approval is without jurisdiction. Hence, seeks for a direction to respondent No. 1 to issue the notification under rule 18C of the Rules. 6. Learned counsel Sri K. V. Aravind appearing for the Revenue submitted that the official memorandum dated March 1, 2012 is only recommendatory. The petitioner has not complied with the condition of commencement of the industrial park within a period of one year from the date as indicated in the approval letter, i.e., March 28, 2006 for availing of benefits under sub-section (4)(iii) of section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act" for short). Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has admitted the date of commencement of the industrial park as March 15, 2007. Further, the occupancy certificate for the commercial building was issued by the Bangalore Development Authority on June 23, 2007. In such circumstances, the petitioner not having complied with the conditions of approval in terms of the Scheme 2008 is not entitled for grant of any notification under rule 18C of the Rules. Learned counsel ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there being no such reference made in the Scheme 2002. In the year 2002 the petitioner would not have visualized the Scheme of 2008 coming with specific definition clause. 10. At this juncture it would be beneficial to refer to the order of the hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. Tarnetar Corporation reported in [2014] 362 ITR 174 (Guj) wherein, in para 6, it is observed thus (page 176 of 362 ITR) : "In the present case, therefore, the fact that the assessee had com pleted the construction well before March 31, 2008 is not in doubt. It is, of course, true that formally BU permission was not granted by the municipal authority by such date. It is equally true that Explanation to clause (a) of section 80-IB(10) links the completion of the construc tion to the BU permission being granted by the local authority. How ever, not every condition of the statute can be seen as mandatory. If substantial compliance thereof is established on record, in a given case, the court may take the view that minor deviation thereof would not vitiate the very purpose for which the deduction was being made available." 11. In the case of CIT v. Ceebros Hotels (P.) Ltd. repo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore March 31, 2010. Further the approving authority, i.e., Municipal Cor poration, Patiala has also accepted that the approval was granted on the basis of an application filed by the appellant on March 29, 2010 and the delay in issuing completion certificate is because of the various stages involved in the process. The delay in issuance of com pletion certificate is beyond the control of the appellant and is not attributable to him. Thus from the submission of the Assessing Officer, the appellant and from the letter of the municipal authorities, it is amply clear that the project was completed before the due date as envisaged under section 80-IB(10) of the Act and the completion cer tificate was also awarded on the basis of certificate dated March 29, 2010. Under the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the ratio of various decisions discussed above is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, looking into the submission made and the facts of the case and respectfully following the decisions as dis cussed above, the deduction claimed under section 80-IB(10) is allowed and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is hereby deleted." 13. It is not....