COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. ACKRUTI CITY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2005-06, following questions of law have been proposed for our consideration.

(2.) Insofar as question (d) is concerned, the Tribunal by the impugned order upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) holding that the respondent-assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80-IA(4)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act" for short). The objection of the Revenue that the deduction under Section 80-IA(4)(iii) of the Act is available to an industrial park only on CBDT notifying the industrial park under Rule 18C of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules' for short). This the CBDT did only on 5th June 2006. Therefore, according to the Revenue the benefit of Section 80-IA of the Act in terms of sub-section (4)(iii) thereof would be available as from Assessment Year 2007-08 and not earlier. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) as well as the Tribunal have held that the Ministry of Commerce and Industry had finally by letter dated 31st December 2004 approved the industrial park and a copy of the same was forwarded to the CBDT. In terms of Rule 18C(4) of the Rules, once the industrial park is approved by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, the CBDT has to suo motu issue the notification. The Tribunal, on examination of all facts concluded that all the requisite conditions for claiming benefit under Section 80-IA(4)(iii) of the Act has been complied with by the respondent-assessee during the assessment year in question. Further, there is no reason to hold the benefit under Section 80-IA(4)(iii) of the Act is available only prospectively from the date of the issue of Notification by the CBDT. In these circumstances, as the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact and mere delay on the part of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in issuing the notification would not warrant the respondent-assessee being denied the benefit of Section 80-IA(4)(iii). This is so, particularly when the Revenue has not been able to point out any infirmity in the approval as granted by the Ministry for Commerce and Industry recognizing the respondent-assessee as industrial park. The view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) and the Tribunal is a reasonable view in the facts of the case and thus we see no reason to entertain question (d).

(3.) The appeal is admitted on questions (a) and (c). To be heard along with Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1316 of 2009 and 779 of 2011.