HC denied writ jurisdict'n as grievances of petit'nr factual & not perverse.

Facts in Brief:

1.  Petitioner applied to CBDT for approval of its Industrial Park (project) under section 80-IA  of Income Tax Act.

2.  CBDT had denied approval under section 80-IA – of income Tax Act.

On Q. Whether in view of conduct of petitioner in putting before Authority figures of allocable area of industrial units which when confronted with were substituted with new figures, coupled with fact that grievances of petitioner being factual which were not shown in any manner to be perverse and/or arbitrary, exercise of writ jurisdiction was not warranted.

  HC held as under:

3.  In view of the conduct of the petitioner in putting before the Authority figures which when confronted with were substituted with new figures. This coupled with the fact that the grievances of the petitioner being factual which are not shown in any manner to be perverse and/or arbitrary, would not warrant exercise of our writ jurisdiction.

4.  Accordingly, the petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Needless to state that ad-interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

  RELEVANT PARAS OF JUDGMENT ARE AS UNDER:

5.  It is a settled principle of law that a person who claims benefit of exemption from payment of taxes has to fully satisfy the provisions extending the benefit. We find that the impugned order records that the petitioner has been shifting its stand every time, a query is raised with regard to the allocable area for industrial units in the project for the purposes of claiming benefit of the notification. 

6.  Further the impugned order records that variation in the various letters of the allocable area is sought to be explained by the petitioner as typographical errors. Moreover, it records that in the letter dated 1.7.2014, the petitioner has stated that now they have remeasured the area of allocable area and therefore, on re-measurement they are now entitled to the benefit of Section 80-IA of the Act.

7.  The impugned order observes that in the absence of area being properly measured, how could the petitioners have sold its unit and also obtained necessary approval from various Statutory Authorities. In any view of the matter when the applicant seeks benefit of exemption, it must state the correct facts at the very first instance and not when the authorities point a flaw in the figures given, and thereafter keep changing it on grounds of typographical error and/or mistake.

8.  The applicant for a benefit of exemption must on the face of it be able to show that the conditions of exemption have been completely satisfied by him. Similarly, the second condition which the impugned order finds not satisfied is with regard to allocation of area for commercial activities. The impugned order records a finding of fact that even if the remeasured figure given by the petitioner is considered, the area allocated to the commercial activities is much more than 10%. 

9.  The petitioner had claimed certain premises were carrying out information technology activities while the impugned order does record on facts that the actual activities carried out at the premises (some of them) were other than Information Technology activities.