Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 256 - ITAT DELHIDeduction u/s 80IA - Disallowance of claim as assessee failed to file its return of income within the time prescribed under subsection (1) of Section 139 - filing of the return within such stipulated period was pre-requisite for claim of deduction under this section - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- In the present case, however, the return of income of the assessee for AY 2012-13 was filed beyond the prescribed time limit u/s 139(1) of the Act. For that the ld.CIT(A) has recorded a categorical finding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the return within the prescribed time limit perhaps due to weak responsive Departmental website. Even in a situation the return of income of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is treated as belated return beyond the prescribed time limit provided u/s 139(1) of the Act, then also, as per the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 397 - SC ORDER] which was followed by the coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Pune in the case of Krushi Vibhag Karmchari Vrund Sahakari Pat Sanstha [2022 (10) TMI 348 - ITAT NAGPUR], the assessee is very well entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. Therefore, we are unable to find any valid reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the ld.CIT(A). Thus, we uphold the same. Accordingly, the sole ground of the Revenue dismissed. Deduction u/s 80IA - denial of deduction as conditions prescribed for claiming deductions u/s 80IA has not been complied with by the assessee because: (i) there was no development of any infrastructure facility; (ii) the appellant had been treating bio medical waste which was not covered in the definition of ‘infrastructure facility’ as per Explanation to section 80IA(4) of the Act and (iii) the appellant was paying rent for plant & machinery which indicate that the facility was not owned by the appellant - HELD THAT:- On being asked by the Bench, rebutting the allegation of the AO that the assessee do not own any plant and machinery as it had paid rent thereon, the ld. Counsel submitted the copies of the financial statements including balance sheet and chart of relevant FY showing claim of depreciation which reveals that the assessee has deployed and set up plant and machinery and had also claimed depreciation thereon which was allowed by the AO without any dispute or doubt, thus, inadvertent mentioning of rent payment in P&L Account on plant & machinery does not raise any bar regarding claim of deployment of plant & machinery by the assessee for setting up of infrastructure facility on which claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) has been made. We are in agreement that the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) that the appellant assessee has set up bio-medical facility as per the provisions of section 80IA(4) of the Act, there is no monetary restriction on the amount of investment required to set up eligible infrastructure facility the appellant assessee has carried out the work contract with various hospitals and local government bodies relating to treatment, management and disposal of bio-medical waste as per the terms and conditions entered with various authorities which has been noted by the ld.CIT(A) in the first appellate order. He rightly noted that it is not an allegation of the AO that any of the prescribed conditions have not been met or else the appellant has not carried out the work relating to biomedical waste treatment in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed in the contracts. After recording the above findings, the ld.CIT(A) finally observed that the infrastructure facility set up by the appellant in the form of bio-medical waste treatment plant is entitled to deduction u/s 80IA(4) - Decided in favour of assessee.
|