SILVER LAND DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 7169/MUM/2010 Assessment Year: 2007-08

Silver Land Developers Private Assistant Commissioner of Limited, 333, 3rd Floor, Income Tax, 10(2), Mumbai. Kailash Plaza, B-Wing, V.B. Vs. Lane, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai - 400077. PAN NO. AAGCS 9764 H Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CA Revenue by : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath – CIT DR a/w Shri Rajgopal Parthasarathi – SR DR.

: 13/07/2026 Date of Hearing : 15/07/2026 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.07.2010 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. CIT(A)"] for the Assessment Year 2007-08, raising various grounds, the principal grievance being the denial of deduction under section 80-

Silver Land Developers Private Limited 2 ITA No. 7169/MUM/2010

IA(4)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). The grounds raised are reproduced as under: “1. On the fact of the issue the learned Assessing Officer has wrongly disallowed an amount of Rs.1,94,232/-, being excess cash found, as unaccounted income only on the ground that same was offered as an additional income by one of the direction of the company in the statement recorded during the survey proceedings U/s 133A of I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Learned Assessing Officer has made a mistake by not appreciating the fact that appellant Company has already declared an income of Rs.2450000/- in the same year being unaccounted cash received from sale of flats in their construction project, and this itself is an explanation of excess cash found and no further disallowance called for. 3. Learned Assessing Officer has disallowed an amount of Rs.23407151/- claimed U/s 80IA of Income Tax Act, 1961 even though necessary evidences was submitted at the time of assessment proceedings. Relief Claimed: Addition of Rs.23601380/- in return of income filed must be deleted.” 2. It is pertinent to note that this appeal was originally disposed of 31.07.2019. ex parte by the Tribunal vide order dated Subsequently, on a Miscellaneous Application preferred by the assessee, the said ex parte order was recalled by the Tribunal vide order dated 24.01.2025, whereupon the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication.

Silver Land Developers Private Limited 3 ITA No. 7169/MUM/2010

4.1 The matter, however, did not rest there. Subsequently, by communication dated 06.01.2009, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry withdrew the benefit extended to the assessee, principally on the ground relating to the date of completion of the Industrial Park. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 453 of 2009. By judgment dated 16.06.2009, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the communication dated 06.01.2009 and remitted the matter to the Empowered Committee for fresh consideration.

4.2 Pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the Empowered Committee reconsidered the matter and was required to

Silver Land Developers Private Limited 4 ITA No. 7169/MUM/2010

examine, inter alia, (i) the date of completion of the project, and (ii) the number of industrial units. By order dated 07.07.2010, the Committee again rejected the assessee's claim for approval under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002.

4.3 The assessee once again approached the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Vide judgment dated 18.10.2010, the High Court set aside the aforesaid order of the Empowered Committee and directed a fresh consideration of the matter.

4.4 Thereafter, upon rehearing, the Empowered Committee again rejected the assessee's application by order dated 21.02.2011, holding that the Industrial Park had not been completed on or before 31.03.2006 and, therefore, was not entitled to approval under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002.

4.5 The assessee challenged the aforesaid order by filing Writ Petition No. 744 of 2011 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. By judgment dated 16.11.2011, the Hon'ble High Court once again accepted the assessee's challenge and held, inter alia, that: (i) Section 80-IA(4)(iii) of the Act does not prescribe commencement of operations on or before 31.03.2006 as a condition precedent for claiming the deduction; and (ii) a reduction in the number of industrial units, without any corresponding reduction in the declared area of the Industrial Park, would not disentitle the assessee from the benefit of the Scheme.

Silver Land Developers Private Limited 5 ITA No. 7169/MUM/2010

4.6 Accordingly, the order dated 21.02.2011 passed by the Empowered Committee was quashed.

Silver Land Developers Private Limited 6 ITA No. 7169/MUM/2010

relevant finding of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal is reproduced as under:-

“8. As we have noted (supra), initially letter of approval dated 24.07.2006 (refer page no. 9 to 11 of PB) was granted to the “Silver Metropolis” to be included as Industrial Park under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002. And thereafter, it was withdrawn/application returned back with an advise to apply before the appropriate authority under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2008 (refer page no. 27- 28 of PB) which action of the Empowered Committee was challenged several times by the assessee before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and was quashed/set aside as discussed (supra). It has been brought to our notice that the Empowered Committee has preferred an appeal (Special Leave Petition) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and its pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. So at present, the main grievance/Lis of the assessee is sub-judice/lis pendence before the Apex Court. And even though, the aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of Ld. CIT(A) according to assessee, still the Ld. CIT(A) hurriedly has passed the impugned order in the month of July, 2020 [which was in the midst of Pandemic Covid-19]. Taking into consideration, the aforesaid facts as discussed, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex parte cannot be countenanced. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct him to keep the aforesaid appeals pending until the decision is given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the lis as discussed (supra). And the Ld. AR/assessee/AO/department is directed to file the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as when it is delivered in the SLP/CA filed by Empowered Committee as discussed (supra) without any delay before the Ld. CIT(A); and bring it to his notice the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court and request for hearing of the appeals thereafter. In the light of the discussion/direction made supra, therefore, we restore the appeals back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) and direct him to decide the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, after hearing the assessee in accordance to the law.” 6. We have carefully examined the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench. We find that the issue involved in the present appeal is identical in all material respects to that considered by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the subsequent assessment years. It is equally undisputed that the controversy regarding the assessee's approval under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, which directly governs its entitlement to deduction under section 80- IA(4)(iii), continues to be pending before the Hon'ble Supreme

Silver Land Developers Private Limited 7 ITA No. 7169/MUM/2010

Court. Judicial discipline demands that, in the absence of any distinguishing feature either on facts or in law, a Coordinate Bench should follow an earlier decision rendered in the assessee's own case, particularly where the foundational issue remains common and undecided by the Apex Court.

6.1 We are, therefore, of the considered view that the present appeal deserves to be disposed of in the same manner as adopted by the Coordinate Bench for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12. Any adjudication on the merits of the assessee's claim at this stage may result in avoidable multiplicity of proceedings and may ultimately become inconsistent with the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6.2 Accordingly, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file. The Ld. CIT(A) shall keep the appeal pending until the Hon'ble Supreme Court renders its final decision in the proceedings arising out of the orders of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court concerning the assessee's eligibility under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002. Immediately upon pronouncement of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, both the assessee and the Revenue shall place the same on record before the Ld. CIT(A), who shall thereafter adjudicate the appeal afresh, including the claim under section 80- IA(4)(iii), by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance

Silver Land Developers Private Limited 8 ITA No. 7169/MUM/2010

with law and in the light of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 15/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 15/07/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai