Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal
order : 17.10.2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.03.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
2. The appeal is time barred by 852 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed wherein it has been mentioned that though the impugned order was passed by the CIT(A) on 20.03.2018 but the copy of the same was never physically served upon the assessee. The order seemed to have been served through e-mail, however, the e-mail of the company, due to some inadvertence, was not opened by the staff of the company during the relevant period and therefore, the assessee company/its directors were not aware of the Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd passing of the impugned order by the CIT(A). The copy of the order was received by the directors on 09.09.2020 only and immediately the directors contacted the tax consultant and after preparation, the present appeal was filed on 16.09.2020. It has, therefore, been prayed that the delay was not intentional but due to the aforesaid circumstances. The aforesaid application has been corroborated with the affidavit of Ms. Neha Roongta, Accounts Manager of the assessee company. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the delay in filing the present appeal by the assessee is hereby condoned.
The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal:
“1. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances the AO was wholly unjustified in not allowing deduction / exemption for Rs. 3,15,24,824/- u/s 801A (4)(iii) in respect of the project, "Salarpuria Touchstone" and in view of the facts and in the circumstances and in view of the details having made available to the AO and the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) is wholly unjustified in confirming the said action of the AO and in view of the facts and in the circumstances and the project being fully exempt u/s 80IA(4)(iii) it may kindly be held accordingly and the AO may kindly be directed accordingly.
For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances the AO was wholly unjustified in allowing credit for TDS of Rs. 5,53,39,517/- only as against the claim of the appellant for Rs. 5,57,39,427/- even in spite of all the details in this regard having been made available and even in spite of the fact that the original TDS certificates for the balance amount of Rs. 3,80,910/- also was duly made available to the AO on 3rd February, 2010 itself and even in spite of the fact that all the details were made available to the Ld. CIT(A) also, the Ld. CIT(A) should I have directed the AO to allow credit for the balance said sum of Rs. 3,80,910/- instead of referring the matter back to him and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the AO may kindly be directed accordingly.
3. For that in view of the facts and circumstances the Ld. CIT(A) should have directed the AO to allow the interest u/s 244A on further refund Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd available to your petitioner and in view of the facts and circumstances the AO may kindly be directed accordingly 4 That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, amplify or modify any or all of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal.” Ground no. 1- At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has 3. submitted that the issue raised vide Ground no.1, as reproduced above, relating to the exemption claimed u/s 80IA(4)(iii) is squarely covered against the assessee by the order of the Tribunal dated 10.05.2022 in the own cases of the assessee passed in for A.Y. 2010-11 and further order dated 17.05.2022 passed in the in ITA no. 2492/Kol/2019 for A.Y. 2011-12. The relevant part of the said order dated 10.05.2022 is reproduced as under.
“3.3. We have heard the rival parties and perused the material on record. The undisputed facts are that the assessee has set up four industrial parks in respect of which the deductions u/s 80IA and 80IB of the Act have been claimed as per details given (supra). Needless to mention that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IA & IB of the Act provided the Industrial Park is notified by the Central Govt under Industrial Park Scheme, 2008.The assessee has furnished the notifications issued by CBDT in respect of all the projects except “Salarpuria Touchstone” in respect of which the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA to the tune of Rs. 6,81,07,687/-. According to the assessee, the competent authority has not notified the Industrial Park despite assessing having applied for the approval of the project and thereafter moving several communications to the competent authority following up and requesting for the notification of the said Industrial Park. We note that the assessee has also filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court seeking the direction to CBDT/competent authority to bring out a notification in respect of Salarpuria Touchstone and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court was also pleased to give certain directions to competent authority in respect of above Industrial Park however again due to the failure of competent authority to follow the directions of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, another writ petition was filed by the assessee before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court seeking necessary directions to the competent authority which is pending for