Ita/11/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S Gopalan Enterprises

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE STH DAY OF NOVEMBER 27072 PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD LT.A. NO.11 OF 2015 BEITWEEN 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD| BANGALORE. 2D.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-11(3), R.P. BHAVAN| NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-S60001. _.. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND M/S. GOPALAN ENTERPRISES|INDIA PVI. LID.,NO.5, RICHMOND ROADNO.48, MUSEUM ROAD|BANGALORE-560025. (BY SMT. S.R. ANURADHA, ADV.) ~-.. RESPONDENT THIS I.T.A. IS. FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OFI.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 18-07-2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.922/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENTYEAR 2006-07, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAWSTATED ABOVE. I] ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS|PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,BANGALORE IN ITA NO.922/BANG/2013 DATED 18-07-2014CONFIRMINGTHE|ORDER.OF|THE|APPELLATECOMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE|DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER|INCOMETAX,CIRCLE-11(3),BANGALORE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,|ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Smt.S.R.Anuradnha,jiearnedcounsel]for.the aSSe@SSAEC 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, forsnort) nas been preferred by the revenue. Tne subjectmatter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this.Court vide order dated O/.12.2015 to consider tne'following substantial questions of law: [|Whether, on the facts and in _ thcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was|justified in holding that the assessee is eligible|for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4)(lil) even tnough the conditions laid qown by the.Ministry of Commerce for the same have notbeen fulfilled by the assessee as noted by tne.assessing officer after pnysical verification of the premises and recorded perverse finding. Il.Whether, on the facts and in the|circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was|justified in nolding 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 ofmore floors in the building and recordeaperverse finding. 3. For the reasons assigned in the judgment dated09.11.2020 passed in ITA No.3/2015, we are left witn.no option but to quash the order passed by the Tribunal.Therefore, it is not necessary to answer the substantialquestions of law. The Tribunal shall decide the matterafresh and shall after affording an opportunity of hearingto the parties, snail record a finding whether the assessee has complied with the conditions laid down in.the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 and whether theassessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section|SOIA(4)(iii) of the Act. In the result, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-'JUDGE RV