Ita/217/2015 Of M/S.escapade Resorts Pvt. Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2015/8TH SRAVANA, 1937 ITA.No. 217 of 2015-------------------------(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9.1.2015 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA 170/2014) APPELLANTS: ------------------ M/S.ESCAPADE RESORTS PVT. LTD UNIT : MARAI BEACHC/O CASINO HOTEL, WILLINGTON ISLANDCOCHIN 682 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.JOSE DOMINICPAN AAACE5978L BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.NOBY THOMAS CYRIAC RESPONDENTS: --------------------- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) KOCHI - 682 018. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-07-2015,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA.No. 217 of 2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/9/2001 ISSUEDBY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.12.2011PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR AY 2009-2010. ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.3.2014 OF THECOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I, COCHIN FOR AY 2009-2010. ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 16.4.2014 FILED BY THEAPPELLANT BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHINBENCH FOR AY 2009-2010. ANNEXURE E: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09-01-2015 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCHIN ITA NO.170/COCH/2014 FOR AY 2009-2010. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T.A.No.217 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30[th] day of July, 2015 Antony Dominic, J. JUDGMENT The issue raised in this appeal is regarding the correctness of the finding of the Tribunal in its order in ITA 170/14 that the initialassessment year for the purpose of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Actis the assessment year 1999-2000. 2. According to the Senior counsel appearing for the appellant,the benefit of Section 80IA can be availed only on satisfaction ofcondition No.(v) prescribing that the hotel is for the time beingapproved by the prescribed authority. It is pointed out that byAnnexure A order dated 13.9.2001 the Prescribed Authority grantedapproval only with effect from 12.4.1999 relevant to the assessmentyear 2000-2001. On this basis, counsel contends that the order of theTribunal affirming the orders of the lower authorities that the initialassessment year is 1999-2000 is incorrect. : 2 : 3. Although this contention would appear to be attractive, wefind that in Section 80IA itself, the term 'initial assessment year'has been defined as the assessment year relevant to the previousyear in which the hotel has started functioning its business.Admittedly, the hotel has started business in the previous yearrelevant to the assessment year 1999-2000. Therefore, even if theapproval of the authority is with effect from 12.4.1999, theTribunal could have decided the issue only in the light of thedefinition of the term 'initial assessment year' contained in Section80IA. If that be so, the view taken by the Tribunal that the initialassessment year is 1999-2000 cannot be faulted. : 2 : 3. Although this contention would appear to be attractive, wefind that in Section 80IA itself, the term 'initial assessment year'has been defined as the assessment year relevant to the previousyear in which the hotel has started functioning its business.Admittedly, the hotel has started business in the previous yearrelevant to the assessment year 1999-2000. Therefore, even if theapproval of the authority is with effect from 12.4.1999, theTribunal could have decided the issue only in the light of thedefinition of the term 'initial assessment year' contained in Section80IA. If that be so, the view taken by the Tribunal that the initialassessment year is 1999-2000 cannot be faulted. 4. True, the assessee could have claimed the benefit ofSection 80IA only after approval has been granted by theprescribed authority and that approval is only with effect from12.4.1999. However, that does not enable the assessee or theTribunal to postpone the initial assessment year which term isstatutorily prescribed and fixed. On the other hand, if the : 3 : prescribed authority had wrongly fixed the date of commencementof the business, it was for the assessee to get that error committedrectified in appropriate proceedings, which has not been done inthis case. For these reasons, we do not find any illegality in the view taken by the Tribunal for us to entertain this appeal.Appeal failsand it is accordingly dismissed. SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jes SD/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE