The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-11(3), Bangalore v. Gopalan Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd
[Citation -2020-LL-1109-14]

Metadata

Citation 2020-LL-1109-14
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-11(3), Bangalore
Respondent Name Gopalan Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 09/11/2020
Assessment Year 2006-07
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags physical verification • claim of deduction • industrial park
Bot Summary: Smt.S.R.Anuradha, learned counsel for the assessee. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.12.2015 to consider the following substantial questions of law: 3 i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4)(iii) even though the conditions laid down by the Ministry of Commerce for the same have not been fulfilled by the assessee as noted by the assessing officer after physical verification of the premises and recorded perverse finding. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that unit means separate floor, without appreciating that the intent of Legislature is to encourage the creation of more businesses for the economy and not creation of more floors in the building and recorded perverse finding. It is not necessary to answer the substantial questions of law. The Tribunal shall decide the matter afresh and shall after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, shall record a finding whether the 4 assessee has complied with the conditions laid down in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 and whether the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act.

Judgment



1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.11 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-11(3), R.P. BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. GOPALAN ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.5, RICHMOND ROAD NO.48, MUSEUM ROAD BANGALORE-560025. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. S.R. ANURADHA, ADV.) --- THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 18-07-2014 2 PASSED IN ITA NO.922/BANG/2013, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. II. ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDERS PASSED BY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.922/BANG/2013 DATED 18-07-2014 CONFIRMING ORDER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM ORDER PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(3), BANGALORE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for revenue. Smt.S.R.Anuradha, learned counsel for assessee. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act , for short) has been preferred by revenue. subject matter of appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2006-07. appeal was admitted by Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.12.2015 to consider following substantial questions of law: 3 i. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in holding that assessee is eligible for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4)(iii) even though conditions laid down by Ministry of Commerce for same have not been fulfilled by assessee as noted by assessing officer after physical verification of premises and recorded perverse finding. ii. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in holding that "unit" means separate floor, without appreciating that intent of Legislature is to encourage creation of more businesses for economy and not creation of more floors in building and recorded perverse finding. 3. For reasons assigned in judgment dated 09.11.2020 passed in ITA No.3/2015, we are left with no option but to quash order passed by Tribunal. Therefore, it is not necessary to answer substantial questions of law. Tribunal shall decide matter afresh and shall after affording opportunity of hearing to parties, shall record finding whether 4 assessee has complied with conditions laid down in Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 and whether assessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of Act. In result, appeal is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-11(3), Bangalore v. Gopalan Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd.
Report Error