TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Ld. AO) in the original assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 27-12-2011. Thereafter, the assessment was re-opened u/s. 147 of the Act and the Ld. AO in his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act on 3-03-2015 disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act of Rs. 1,22,84,088/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Learned CIT(A). 3. In its appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) both the legality of re-opening as well as denial of claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) was challenged by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld.AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- 1.For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances the order u/s 143(3)/147 dt. 30.3.2015 is wholly bad, illegal, unjustified and uncalled for both on points of law as well as facts and in view of the facts and in the circumstances such order is liable to be quashed / cancelled and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the Ld. CIT(A) is wholly unjustified in confirming the said action of the AO and in view of the facts and in the circumstances it may kindly be held accordingly. 2.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pending and hence the matter is sub-judice and hence the entire proceedings u/s. 147 based merely on the change of opinion is wholly bad, illegal, unjustified and uncalled for and in the circumstances the Ld. CIT(A) is wholly unjustified in confirming the said action of the AO and in view of the facts and in the circumstances it may kindly be held accordingly. 5. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances the AO having failed to dispose of the objection petition filed and the objection petition having not been disposed of by the AO the entire order u/s 147/143(3) is wholly bad, illegal, unjustified, uncalled for and void ab initio both on points of law as well as facts and in view of the facts and in the circumstances, the Old. CIT(A) is wholly unjustified in confirming the said actin of the AO and in view of the facts and in the circumstances it may kindly be held accordingly. 6. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not granting benefit for deduction uls 80IA(4)(iii) and as such the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO without appreciating the fact that the appellant is entitled to such deducti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich was duly approved by the Empowered Committee. The assessee had already enclosed a copy of approval dated 25.07.2006 at assessee's paper book page 52, Vol-I. We are reproducing relevant para 5(2i) of the Scheme which reads as under: "In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date as indicate in Para 4(xi) of the approval letter, fresh approval shall be required under the Industrial Park Scheme 2002, for availing benefits under Sub-section 4(iii) of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the AO in his remand report, given at page 86 of assessee's Paper book Volume had merely contended that- (a) The date of lease agreements prior to 31.03.2007 cannot be construed as to the actual date of commencement of lease rental and for which he also submitted the magnitude of electricity from March 2007 to till March 2008. (b) Further, he contended that the architect's completion certificate was dt. 16.01.2007 when the assessee had applied for completion certificate before the Bangalore Development Authority vide letter dated 29.12.2006. (c) The assessee had increased the number of Indust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....letion Certificate issued by the Architech. It is not within the control of the assessee company to obtain completion certificate from Bangalore Development Authority and contention of the assessing authority is not correct. The Provisional completion certificate issued by M/s. Venkataramannan Associates dated 26.12.2006 was submitted along with application made to Bangalore Development Authority for completion certificate on 29.12.2006. Subsequently another inspection was done by 10.01.2007 and accordingly completion certificate was issued on 16.01.2007 and the same was submitted to Bangalore Development Authority. The copy of the Provisional Completion Certificate dated 26.12.2006 has been filed before and his contention of make- believe is only to create unnecessary doubt. The observation by the AO about the details of IPS-II as on 01.07.2007 filed on 19.07.2008 and IPS-II 01.07.2008 should be read as 01.01.2008 filed on 19.07.2008. Since all other facts remains same except that the number of units lease out are different & have been mentioned correct. The contention of the AO that the fresh approval was required under the non-automatic.. more than the minimum number of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The provision in the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act is for issuance of occupancy certificate. When the statute does not provide for issue of a completion certificate, if the authorities were insisting on such certificate, the assessee has gone to the Village Panchayat within whose limits the property is situated and has obtained the completion certificate and has produced the same for availing the benefit. Whether that certificate would satisfy the requirement of law need not be gone into in these proceedings because, when the statute does not provide for issue of such a certificate, if the Revenue insists on such certificate, the assessee would be left with no option except to get such certificate with some authority which would be called as a local authority. In the facts of this case, we are of the view that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the building was completed within the stipulated period and therefore de hors this certificate issued by the Panchayat after the building is completed, the assessee is entitled to the said benefit. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in these appeals. Accordingly the appeals are dismissed. Further, exa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Commerce Ministry, in the absence of any express provision ill the Rules, it should be presumed that the authority, which has given approval, has the power revocation and examination of compliance of the conditions upon which the approval has been accorded. Therefore, it is the duty of the Commerce Ministry to decide whether an industrial undertaking is complying with- the conditions envisaged in the scheme and if the undertaking fails to comply with those conditions, it is the Commerce Ministry alone, which has the right to withdraw the benefit granted under sub-rule [2J of Rule l8C of the Rules. As soon as the approval under sub-rule[2] of Rule 18C is given, it is obligatory on the part of the Central Board of Direct Taxes to notify industrial parks in terms of sub-rule [4] of Rule 18C." 11. In similar circumstances Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Silver I Developers (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Empowered Committee (2012) 343 ITR 0439 (Born) has that the Empowered Committee was not justified in rejecting the application for notification approved units u/s. 80IA(4) (iii) of the Act under the Industrial Park Scheme of 2002 only on ground that development of Industr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....response to this, the attention of the Court was drawn by the learned Counsel. for the Petitioners to the Dmt 36 wp744-11jact that the Petitioners had in their original application stated thatthere would be eight units; that the proposed area of the industrial park would be 8261-56 sq. mt.; and that the proposed allocable area of would be 6529.42 sq. mt. By their further application dated 26 October 2006 the Petitioners sought to alter the number of units from eight to three. - However, there was no change proposed either in the area as declared earlier or in the allocable area. Learned Counsel submitted that the Petitioners fulfilled in substance the object and substance underlying the Scheme and the Department was notified on 25 July 2007 that three units located in the park as on 14 March 2007 were occupied by Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Polaris Software Lab. Ltd., and Bharti Airtel Ltd -. Subsequently, the Petitioners notified the Department that an additional unit had been occupied by Citigroup Global Services Ltd. 23. The application filed by the Petitioners for a modification of the number of approved units was not allowed Dmt 37 wp 744-11 pure....