TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 798
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....havale on his email and thereafter the assessee was bonafide impression that necessary action has been taken by the chartered accountant of the assessee. The ld AR submitted that unfortunately the email of the chartered accountant was not functional and therefore he was not aware of the order of Ld. CIT(A) sent to him. It is only when the assessee enquired about the status of the appeal it came to know that no appeal has been filed before the Tribunal against the order of Ld. CIT(A) within 60 days and hence this delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the substantial justice is pitted against the technicalities then former must prevail over the latter. The Ld. A.R. relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & ors. 167 ITR 471 and prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned. 4. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, strongly opposed the arguments of the Ld. A.R. that there is no reasonable cause for condoning the delay as assessee has completely failed to discharge the burden cast upon to explain the delay of each and every day and therefore submitted that the appeal may not be admitted. 5. After hearing the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....othing to do highways. So the issue before us is whether the truck terminal is an integral part of highways or not. We note that Finance Act, 2001 has modified the definition of infrastructure facility which means a highway project including housing or other activities being an integral part of the highway project. It is clear from the amended definition that any infrastructure which is part of the high way falls within the definition of infrastructure. After perusing the facts on record carefully and also examining the terms and conditions of award of contract to the assessee to construct, build or operate the said terminal on BOT basis, we find that this is an integral part of highway though the highway was existing already and it was only a stand alone project awarded to the assessee later on. We have also noticed that the said terminal was having various facilities as stated hereinabove. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vintage Advertising Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 60 taxmann.com 162 (Kolkata- Tribunal) wherein it has been held that assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80IA of the Act on bus shelter and foot over ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proves that the assessee's income does not include any profit which is derived from developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining foot overbridge and bus shelter. The learned Departmental representative further submitted that the hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Skyline Advertising (P.) Ltd. [2014] 225 Taxman 220 (Mag.)/45 taxmann.com 532 , has held that the benefit under section 80-IA of the Act can be extended only to those assessees who have developed infrastructure facility as defined under section 80-IA(4) of the Act. The hon'ble High Court discussed the fact of the case that the assessee has not developed road or a toll road, bridge, highway or a rail system. However, it had developed the existing road median, erected bus shelters and light poles for its advertisement business, which, in any case cannot be treated as infrastructure development. Accordingly, the hon'ble High Court decided the question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In view of the above the learned Departmental representative prayed that the assessee cannot be allowed any deduction under section 80-IA of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not include any profit which is derived from developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining foot overbridge and bus shelter. The learned Departmental representative further submitted that the hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Skyline Advertising (P.) Ltd. [2014] 225 Taxman 220 (Mag.)/45 taxmann.com 532 , has held that the benefit under section 80-IA of the Act can be extended only to those assessees who have developed infrastructure facility as defined under section 80-IA(4) of the Act. The hon'ble High Court discussed the fact of the case that the assessee has not developed road or a toll road, bridge, highway or a rail system. However, it had developed the existing road median, erected bus shelters and light poles for its advertisement business, which, in any case cannot be treated as infrastructure development. Accordingly, the hon'ble High Court decided the question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In view of the above the learned Departmental representative prayed that the assessee cannot be allowed any deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. 10. Learned counsel for the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Book Scheme (DEPB) and the Duty Drawback Scheme could be said to be profit derived from the business of an industrial undertaking eligible for deduction under section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act. Hence he submitted that this case law does not support the case of the Department. He further submitted that the very agreements under which the assessee has developed, operated and maintained the infrastructure facility at its own cost provided for revenue generation by the assessee by the display of commercial advertisement on the infrastructure facility developed by it. Learned counsel further submitted that the assessee was also not to charge any amount from the public users of the infrastructure facility developed by it. That the assessee was however permitted to use the infrastructure facility developed by it to raise revenue by display of commercial advertisements on it. That the provision in the agreements relating to generation of revenue in the manner aforesaid is inextricably and directly connected with the development, operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility provided for in the agreements. Learned counsel further submitted that the assessee did not merely dev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. In that case it was also pointed out that the hon'ble Calcutta High Court had passed an order confirming the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in quashing a revision order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act whereby allowance of section 80-IA of the Act on bus shelters and foot overbridges was disallowed. 12. Learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that section 80-IA of the Act provides for deduction on account of profits and gains derived by an industrial undertaking from any business referred to therein. Learned counsel further submitted that the hon'ble apex court in the case of Liberty India (supra ) dealt with the question whether the profit from the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (DEPB) and the Duty Drawback Scheme could be said to be profit derived from the business of an industrial undertaking eligible for deduction under section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act. Hence he submitted that this case law does not support the case of the Department. He further submitted that the very agreements under which the assessee has developed, operated and maintain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dvertising (P.) Ltd. (supra ) wherein the hon'ble High Court has upheld the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision quashing the revision order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act wherein bus shelters and foot overbridges were not to be considered as part of the infrastructure facility for claiming deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. 14. As regards the issue raised by the learned Departmental representative that the income which is the subject matter of claim of deduction under section 80-IA of the Act was not derived from the business of advertising of bus shelters and foot overbridges, we find that this is altogether a new issue which is not even the case of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has made the disallowance only on the ground that construction of bus shelter and foot overbridge cannot be treated as development of infrastructure facility. Hence they do not qualify for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. This aspect of the Assessing Officer's disallowance has been duly overruled by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The same also draw....