TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the AO to may verify Form 10CC and initial years assessment orders of each business based on the contract entered with Railways . PCIT has merely set aside to indulge in verification of the same facts yet again without citing as to how the AO has committed any error except alleging no proper enquiry. The assessment order can be interdicted u/s 263 of the Act only where both the conditions are met i.e. order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. No error has been shown by the PCIT except absence of proper enquiry. Issue of deduction has been found to be continuing since last many assessment years and necessary documentations for claim / deduction has been placed on record and examined by the AO. No inconsistency in the action of the AO has been shown which can render his action to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. As no two persons possibly think alike, variance in their analysis, understanding and application of law in same or similar factual matrix by itself would not empower a superior authority to displace the view of the lower authority. This apart, in the absence of any reason showing error in the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s grossly erred in setting aside the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) of the Act with direction to make fresh assessment on specified issues by holding that the said order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld. PCIT has failed to appreciate that the said assessment order has been passed by the Ld. AO after conducting necessary diligent enquiries with specific emphasis on the claim of deduction u/ s. 80IA of the Act and conscious application of mind deliberation to the material on record and hence, it is prayed that the order passed under section 263 of the Act being highly unjustified and not in accordance with the provisions of law, may please be cancelled. GROUND NO. III 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. PCIT has grossly erred in holding that the Ld. AO has not conducted proper enquiries in respect of admissibility of claim of deduction under the provisions of section 80IA of the Act, particularly without himself rendering any primafacie findings as to the admissibility or otherwise of the claim put forth u/ s. 80IA of the Act and merely direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Railways at three locations: (i) Siliyargi (CG)- Date of Commencement of Operations : 16.04.2007 (Initial Asst. Yr. 2008-09); (ii) Bhupdeopur, Raigarh (CG) Date of commencement of Operations : 02.12.2008 (Initial Asst. Yr. 2009-10); (iii) Tadali, Chandrapur (MH) Date of commencement of Operations : 01.03.2011 (Initial Asst. Yr. 2011-12). 4.1 The assessee accordingly claimed that having satisfied the prescribed conditions, deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act was claimed in various assessment years for the respective locations/sites as pointed out above. In the return of income for AY 2015-16, the assessee inter alia claimed deduction under s.80IA(4) of the Act for which Form No.10CCB was filed as required. The assessment was carried out by the AO under s.143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2017 wherein the AO allowed the claim of deduction under s.80IA(4) of the Act for the various locations/sites as claimed. 5. Thereafter, the PCIT in exercise of its revisionary powers, issued show cause notice dated 22.03.2021 under s.263 of the Act requiring the assessee to show cause as to why the impugned assessment so framed under s.143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2017 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowance of deduction under s.80IA of the Act. As noted earlier, the assessee is engaged in the business of developing, operating and maintaining a logistic park (Railway Siding/Integrated Rail System) under an agreement with South East Central Railway, location at Silyari (C.G.), Bhupdeopur, Raigarh (CG) Tadali, Chandrapur (Mah.). The assessee company started operations of its Logistics Park (Railway Siding) at Siliyari with effect from 16th April, 2007 i.e. Assessment Year 2008-09, Logistics Park (Railway Siding) at Bhupdeopur, Raigarh with effect from 2nd December, 2008 i.e. Assessment Year 2009-10 Logistics Park (Railway Siding) at Tadali, Chandrapur with effect from 1st March, 2011 i.e. Assessment Year 2011-12 i.e. in earlier assessment years. During the assessment year under reference, the assessee company has been continuing with the eligible business of Development, Operation Maintenance of Infrastructure Facility viz. Logistic Parks (Railway Sidings/Integrated Rail Systems) on which deduction under s.80IA(4) of the Act was claimed and assessed. The assessee company was thus duly entitled to deduction from their Gross Total Income under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.80IA(4) of the Act was allowed after particular consideration of past assessment history consistently allowing deduction in the preceding assessment years etc. in the identical factual matrix. 10.4 It is also asserted on behalf of the assessee that once pre- requisite conditions stipulated under s.80IA of the Act is satisfied and allowed in initial assessment years, deduction could not be withdrawn under s. 143(3) of the Act until the finality achieved in initial assessment year is disturbed. Consequently, the action of AO being plausible in law could not be disturbed under s.263 of the Act. For this proposition, following decisions have been relied upon: (a) CIT vs. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. HC) (b) Simple Food Products (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017) 84 taxmann. com 239 (Bom. HC) (c) Manilal Dayatji Company Vs. CIT in ITA No. 32/ RPR/ 2014 (Date Of Order : 09. 03. 2018) (1 TAT Raipur) (d) K. Raheja IT Pork (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 691/ Hyd/ 2016 (Date of Order: 06. 05. 2021) (ITAT Hyderabad) 10.5 It is further contended that deduction u/s.80IA of the Act was allowed in the case of Private Railway Sidings treating it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the acceptance of continuity of claim under s.80IA(4) of the Act cannot be seen with any concern without showing deviation in facts. It is further seen that private railway sidings have been treated as eligible infrastructure facility for the purposes of Section 80IA(4) of the Act by the co-ordinate benches. Lastly, the purport of enquiry directed by the PCIT is totally unintelligible. The PCIT himself has not carried out any examination or verification of facts and has simply directed the AO to may verify Form 10CC and initial years assessment orders of each business based on the contract entered with Railways . The PCIT has merely set aside to indulge in verification of the same facts yet again without citing as to how the AO has committed any error except alleging no proper enquiry. 12. Needless to say, the assessment order can be interdicted under s.263 of the Act only where both the conditions are met i.e. order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. No error has been shown by the PCIT except absence of proper enquiry. As noted, the issue of deduction has been found to be continuing since last many assessment years and necessary docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
