OPTI PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2890/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 March 2020AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

Following a previous order of the tribunal on a similar plea, the tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after the disposal of the assessee's writ petition by the High Court.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) for an IT park. The AO rejected the claim as the assessee had not obtained the required government notification and a writ petition for the same was pending before the High Court. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) can be allowed when the required government notification is pending and a writ petition is filed before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IA(4)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A ” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 21.01.2020Pronounced: 10.03.2020

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai, in dated 13.09.2019 for assessment year 2007-08.

2.

M/s. Opti Products Pvt. Ltd., the assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) in respect of “Prince Tatia Info Park” purportedly developed and operated by it. The AO required the assessee to furnish a copy of notification issued by the Central Government in favour of “Prince Tatia Info Park”, towards which the assessee submitted that it has filed a petition no. 26672 of 2011 before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras praying for issuance of notification for due recognition. Since the assessee has not satisfied the basic condition for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii), the AO rejected the assessee’s claim and completed the assessment. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal.

3.

The Ld. AR submitted that since the writ petition filed by the assessee before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court is pending, he pleaded that the issues in this appeal may be restored back to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after the disposal of writ petition by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that this tribunal in its own case for assessment year 2010-11 in dated 04.06.2019, on similar plea, restored the issues in that appeal to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the writ petition of the assessee in WP No. 26672 of 2011.

4.

We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material. Since, the assessee’s writ petition before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court is pending for decision, following the order of this tribunal, in the interests of natural justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of AO for re-adjudication after the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the WP No. 26672 of 2011.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on Tuesday, 10th March, 2020 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 80IA(4)(iii)

All 69 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IA(4)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →