TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sturbed by any higher forum so as to take a different view on the issue disputed before us. Taking a consistent view, we are inclined to reject the arguments of the ld. DR and allow the grounds taken by the assessee in this appeal. - ITA No.616/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2021 - Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member And Smt. Beena Pillai, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals), Bengaluru-9, Bangalore dated 07.02.2019 for the assessment year 2014-15 on the following grounds of appeal:- 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not a statutory body for purposes of clause [b] of section 80IA[4][i] of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies itself liable to be charged to interest u/s.234-A and 234-B of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and the levy deserves to be cancelled. 6. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs. 2. The issue raised in this appeal is that the denia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble High Court was, whether BIAL is performing the function of a State and not whether BIAL is a statutory body . Since a part of shareholding was with Govt. of India/State Govt., it was held by the Hon ble Court that BIAL is performing the function of a State and should be fair and transparent in tendering process in public interest. The issue before the Hon ble Court was with regard to non-transparent tendering process and not deduction u/s. 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] or any other provisions of the Act. Being so, whether BIAL is a statutory body is not with reference to the Income-tax Act. Hence the above judgment relied on by the Tribunal in its earlier orders cannot be applied. Further, it was submitted that the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issue as to whether BIAL is a statutory body or not had come up for consideration before the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Flemingo Dutyfree Shops Pvt. Ltd., in WP No.14215/2006 and by order dated 19-12-2008, the Hon'ble High Court has held it to be a statutory authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the assessee, BIAL is a statutory body and hence the decision of the Tribunal on this issue is erroneous and needs re-consideration in the light of the jurisdictional High Court. 3. The learned Departmental Representative was also heard and having gone through the material on record, we find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s.Flemin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment, this finding of the Tribunal is ambiguous and hence is a mistake apparent from record which needs rectification. Thus, the revenue has sought recall of the order and rectification of the alleged mistake apparent from record. The MP of the revenue was posted along with the appeal for hearing. 3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that after going through the details furnished by the assessee, this Tribunal held that the activity carried on by the assessee is infrastructure development, but since the major shareholders in BIAL are not Government authorities, it is not a statutory authority and therefore the deduction u/s 80IA(4) is not allowable. He submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utory body. Therefore, respectfully following the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court order, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 8. In the result, the Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 8. Further, the Tribunal Order vide dated 18.1.2021 in ITA No.938/Bang/2019 for AY 2015-16 held as under:- 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the Tribunal in AY 2009-10 vide its order dated 30.1.2014 in ITA No.1160/Bang/2012 while holding that the agreement entered into by the assessee with BIAL was for development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act and holding in favour of the assessee, on the other hand held against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
