Itta/620/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Visakhapatnam v. M/S. Premier Engieering Syndicate

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.620 of 2013 DATED:13.3.2014 Between:Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Visakhapatnam. … Appellant And M/s. Premier Engineering Syndicate,Visakhapatnam. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.620 of 2013 Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 19.10.2010 on thefollowing suggested questions of law: a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to thebenefit of deduction U/s. 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in spite ofnon-production of completion certificate from the Municipal Authorities ? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal is correct in proceeding on the premise that the reply dt.13.7.2009 obtained by the assessee under Right to Information Act,answers the description of completion certificate, within the meaning ofExplanation to Section 80IB (10)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. c) Whether the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit ofdeduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the faceof the circumstance that Project was completed on 13.7.2009, as isevidenced by the communication of the Municipality dt. 13.7.2009. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after goingthrough the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, we findthat the learned Tribunal has correctly held that the information in writingreceived under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the R.T.I.Act’) was admissible in evidence and this can be relied on. According tous, the original records containing the information as to the date ofcompletion of the project are lying with the Municipal Authority, who is not a party to the proceedings nor an assessee. This informationsupplied by the aforesaid authority under the R.T.I. Act is acceptable andadmissible under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short‘the Evidence Act’). The relevant provision of Section 65 of the EvidenceAct is as follows: Section 65:Cases in which secondary evidence relating to-documents may be given: Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition orcontents of a document in the following cases. (e) When the original is a public document within the meaningof Section 74. of Section 74. Now, under the R.T.I. Act, any information, contained in adocument, which is to be supplied thereunder by any authority, suchdocument can be said to be a public document within the meaning asabove. More over, the aforesaid document will also be covered by theprovisions of Section 65(f) of the Evidence Act, which reads as follows: When the original is a document of which a certified copy ispermitted by this Act, or by any other Law in force in India, to be given inevidence;. In any view of the matter, the assessee has discharged the initialburden by producing the aforesaid document to prove the date ofcompletion of the project and if the Revenue would want to rebut it, itshould have produced counter evidence to disprove the same. Nothing isto be decided in this matter. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shallstand dismissed. No costs. __________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 13[th] March, 2014 PNB