Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Therefore, since the said contract under similar facts and circumstances is continuing even in this year to my considered opinion now, it cannot be said that the said contract is 'works contract', not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, without bringing on record any further material/evidences. 2.5. It was his submission that once it had been demonstrated relying upon queries made and in the course of the proceedings which were made available to the Pr. CIT also that the other contracts taken by the assessee were also of a similar nature and thus in case the Pr. CIT disagreed, then it was incumbent on the Pr. CIT to show that the said claim on facts was wrong by pointing to some error. At the last stage, to sweepingly refer that basic contracts have not been called forth is a contradictory stand and patently arbitrary. Referring to the record, it ITA 867/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 4 of 36 was submitted, that in the year under consideration the subject matter of dispute with the Department is the last three contracts referred to in the table extracted by the Pr. CIT in para 6 page 8 of his order. Reference on the said page, it was submitted is to the contracts executed by the assessee in support of the Irrigation & Public Health Department, Thural and Dehra (HP) and Uttrakhand Peyjal Nigam, Pauri & Rudraparyag. It was submitted, that the assessee has argued that the assessee is primarily engaged in the infrastructure development, maintenance and operation of development of infrastructure facilities for which purposes, it had been awarded these specific contracts. Referring to the assessment order, it is submitted that the AO has taken due notice of the non exempt unit i.e. the by- pass Hamirpur site and the remaining four projects i.e. Water Supply Project ,IPH Thural; Water Supply Project Dehra; Water Supply Pauri; and Water Supply Project, Rudraprayag have been noted as exempt units and the ITAT has already considered the contract qua the Water Supply Project IPH Thural wherein identical exercise of the Revisionary Powers u/s 263 by the Pr. CIT in 2011-12 assessment year has been held to be bad in law. In the said year also, the Pr. CIT had held the very similarly worded Contract as a "Works Contract" and had held that exemption has been granted by the AO on erroneous facts without due application of mind and on the basis of inadequate inquiry and without considering the Contract. Even in the said year, the AO was castigated for granting relief without making any enquiry. The ITAT in the order dated 06.02.2012 in ITA 361/CHD/2016 held that it was not a case of inadequate enquiry. Inviting attention to para 4 of the synopsis filed, it was submitted, that the queries raised and details made available to the AO which are also relied upon by the Pr. CIT would show that all aspects and facts have been considered. The replies of the assessee set out in para 4 were heavily relied upon. Reading therefrom, it was submitted, that apart from the other arguments, even otherwise the assumption of jurisdiction was not maintainable as the issue which finds mention in the order was not mentioned in the show cause notice. It was submitted had it been referred, the detailed replies to queries on record would have shown that even in this regard,, the powers u/s 263 have been wrongly invoked by the Pr CIT. Since heavy reliance is placed ITA 867/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 5 of 36 on these facts and submissions, for ready reference, the submissions are reproduced hereunder :
'It was forcibly argued and submitted that that the assessee is primarily engaged in the infrastructure development, maintenance and operation of development of infrastructure facilities. It was submitted that the assessee was awarded contracts by Irrigation and Public Health Department (IPH), Thural Division and Dehra Division of HP Government one/Government of Uttrakhand Peyjal Nigam, Pauri and Rudraparyag."
(emphasis supplied) 2.9 The fact that similar argument has been raised before the Pr. CIT and has been ignored by the said authority, it was submitted is further evident from para 3:
"Therefore, it was submitted that he composite projects awarded to the assessee were on built, operate and transfer basis. It was further submitted that copies of all the contracts/agreements along with the award letters and schedules accompanying thereto, including the site plans of the development activity as per the infrastructure development project/contract, were submitted and produced before the AO during the original assessment. He has again produced the same along with latest photographs of the projects developed, which are placed on record. Thirdly, the AR has submitted that for the AY 2012-2013 the assessee filed his return of income claiming deduction U/s 80-IA on the contracts executed for aforesaid infrastructure projects/infrastructure facilities which was accordingly allowed by the AO under scrutiny and after examining the documentary evidences produced before the AO i.e. copies of contracts/agreements, award letters and accompanied documents, audit report in Form 10CCB including books of account etc. It was also submitted that the said assessment year was the third year of its claim of said deduction, 'which was accordingly allowed. He has also submitted that the infrastructure facility developed by the assessee was based on the allotment of a composite contract for infrastructure development. Fourthly, the AR, has also submitted that the aforesaid composite contracts awarded to the assessee were executed by deployment of o w n m a c h i n e r y i n s t a l l e d i n c l u d i n g i t s c o m p o n e n t s , engineers/architects/designers and labor employed by the assessee, designing, execution, financing in the form of capital investment, entrepreneurial risk, performance guarantee etc, is the sole responsibility of the assessee and no role in relation thereto is played by the concerned State Governments."

28. Ld.DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the learned Pr. CIT and stated that the profits earned on the sub contract work were not eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act and the same having not been examined by the Assessing Officer an error had crept in the order of the Assessing Officer causing prejudice to the revenue by allowing the assessee claim of deduction of profits under section 80IA on the same. 29 Having heard the rival contentions, we find merit in the contentions made by the Ld. counsel for the assessee. It is not disputed that the assessee had been awarded a contract for infrastructure development. The assessee has stated that a part of the work was subcontracted for ease in execution in the entire project. This fact has not been rebutted by the learned Pr. CIT. Therefore, it remains that the profit earned by the assessee as a whole was on account of the project of development of infrastructure and the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80IA of the same. Even otherwise we find that the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80IA was duly examined by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings and allowed by him also. As stated above the assessee's claim had been allowed both in the preceding year and in the succeeding year also. On a query raised by the Bench whether the assessee had been subcontracting work in the preceding and succeeding years also, the Ld. counsel of the assessee stated at the bar that the assessee had been subcontracting work in all years also. From the aforesaid it is evident that the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80IA was examined in all respects by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and duly allowed. Moreover the fact that the assessee had been allowed deduction on the same pattern in the preceding and succeeding years lends credence to the allowance of the claim by the Assessing Officer in the impugned year also. Further we find that the learned Pr. CIT has no basis at all for stating that the profit earned on account of job work got done by subcontractors was a separate contract which was not eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act. What can be gathered from the findings of the learned Pr. CIT is that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80IA only on account of work/contract/project executed by it. We find that this understanding of the provisions of section 80IA is incorrect and has no judicial precedents at all and on account of the same we hold that there is no error in the order of the Assessing Officer on this count also and set aside the same for this reason.