TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 752
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he tune of Rs. 3,70,52,575/- for its Sai Trinity project situated at Survey No. 146, Hissa No. 2/1A+2B/1+2/1B, Pashan, Pune. During the course of the survey action under Section 133A of the Act at the office premises of M/s. Sai Constructions Pvt. Ltd. at 604, 605, Sai Chambers, Wakdewadi, Pune, on 20th January 2010, certain loose papers and documents were impounded wherein page No. 102 of Bundle No. B was a copy of the letter dated 4th March 2009 from the Under Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, to the Assessee which stated that, on the basis of the State Government's Report dated 23rd April 2008, the building in which the Industrial Park was being developed by the Assessee's proprietary concern, M/s. S Balan, did not belong to an individual but belonged to a partnership firm named M/s. S Balan & Co. Further, the said letter mentioned that the building was divided into three different wings and only a part of that building (Central Wing) was being developed as an Industrial Park, thus it could not be stated that an Industrial Park was being developed as a whole and accordingly the case of the Assessee was not eligible under the Industrial Park Schem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)(iii) for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The AO forwarded his Remand Report which was controverted by the Assessee. 5. The Assessee, in its Reply to the Remand Report, submitted that the observation of the AO that the Assessee had not completed the Industrial Park even upto the date of scrutiny assessment was factually not correct as the Assessee started earning income from the Industrial Park from Financial Year 2006- 07, relevant to Assessment Year 2007-08, but due to losses incurred did not have positive gross total income for Assessment Years 2007- 08 and 2008-09 due to which the said deduction was not claimed. The Assessee further submitted that it claimed the said deduction for the first time in Assessment Year 2009-10 when positive gross total income was available. As regards the objections of the AO that the building in which the Industrial Park was being developed by the Assessee's proprietary concern did not belong to an individual but belonged to a partnership firm named M/s. S Balan & Co., the Assessee submitted that the same was factually not correct. It was stated that the Sai Trinity building was originally completed as a bare shell and, thereafter, wings B ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....basis of the State Government's Report dated 23rd April 2008, the building in which the Industrial Park was located belonged to a partnership firm, i.e. M/s. S Balan & Co, and not to an individual, and that the Industrial Park was not developed as a whole as only a part of the building was being developed and hence the same was not eligible under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002. It can also be seen that the Assessee had stated that the Review Application filed by him was pending with the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and subject to the same had withdrawn his claim for deduction. However, subsequently, the Assessee filed an Affidavit denying the said claim as being withdrawn as the matter was sub-judice before the Empowered Committee. 12. We are of the view that the Asseessee had fulfilled the conditions specified under Section 80IA(4)(iii). The conditions specified by Section 80IA(4)(iii) are as follows:- "(1) The assessee develops, develops and operates or maintains and operates an industrial park. (2) The industrial park should be notified by the Central Government. (3) The notification should be in accordance with the scheme framed and notified by that Government f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he date of the application, i.e., 12th May 2006. The Assessee had also clarified the issue regarding the development of the Industrial Park by an individual and not by the partnership firm, which is also evident from the approval granted by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. It is further seen from the record that the Assessee applied for approval of the Industrial Park in Sai Trinity building under 'non automatic' approval route on 8th December 2005 and received the approval on 9th December 2005. The Asseessee had thereafter applied for reduction in number of units on 26th April 2006. The Industrial Park was commissioned in September 2006. The material on record indicates that, on the basis of an erroneous State Government Report about the ownership of the property in which the Industrial Park was constituted, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry rejected the approval vide its letter dated 4th March 2009. It was the same letter which was found during the survey action and on the basis of which the claim for deduction made by the Assessee was rejected by the AO. However, prior to the search and survey action, the Assessee had applied for a Review of the rejection to the Empowe....