Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1188 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) - scope of Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 framed by the Central Government - HELD THAT:- It is ex-facie apparent that the Co-ordinate bench of this Court while disposing [2020 (11) TMI 922 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has observed that no finding has been recorded by the Tribunal whether or not the assessee has fulfilled the conditions laid down in the scheme. Tribunal being final fact finding authority is required to record the reasons for its conclusion. It has been categorically observed that the Tribunal shall decide the matter afresh and shall after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, shall record a finding whether the assessee has complied with the conditions laid down in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 and whether the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) - This specific direction of this Court ought to have been complied with, in stricto sensu, by the Tribunal being the last fact finding authority. The Tribunal in second round of litigation instead of analyzing the material facts available on record has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer which cannot be approved by this Court. When a direction is issued by the jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal is expected to comply with the same in letter and spirit. Even assuming that no factual finding is recorded either by the Ao or the CIT (Appeals), that exercise ought to have been done by the Tribunal as the final fact finding authority which has got a co-extensive power with that of the Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals). Accordingly, remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer is not the solution to the litigation which would open a third round of litigation making the assessee to suffer and the same is nothing but harassment to both the parties, unnecessarily delaying the entire process of adjudication. Hence, without answering the substantial questions of law, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order impugned and remand the matter back to the Tribunal to consider the directions issued by this Court in letter and spirit and comply the same in an expedite manner in accordance with law.
|