IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rupa Infotech & Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle

401, Rupa Plaza 14(1)(2), Mumbai Jawahar Road, Ghatkopar (East)

Mumbai - 400077 [PAN: AADCR0249Q]

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri S.L. Jain, AR Revenue by Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT D/R &

Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 05.12.2025 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Billai, JM:

Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated

11/07/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”] for assessment year 2014-15 on the following grounds:-

“1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in withdrawing, part of deduction allowed u/s.80IA(4)(iii) on income to the extent of Rs.98,30,536/-,although allowed in Original Assessment on the plea that profit on resale of units is not profit on developing eligible Software Techno Park without considering the fact that appellant reacquired the units, by way of return, carried out development activities and resold, profit earned being assessed as business income of the eligible undertaking is entitled for deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iii) .

2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding validity of notice u/s.148 without considering the fact that no new tangible material is being received after completion of original assessment u/s.143(3), hence notice u/s.148 is issued based on change of opinion on reappraisal of pre-existing material, hence is bad in law.

3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding validity of notice u/s.148 without appreciating the fact that notice issued u/s.148 is hit by first proviso to section 147 as being issued after lapse of 4 years from the end of Assessment year, although Original Assessment was completed under order dated 23-03-215 u/s 143(3) and there is no allegation, in reasons recorded, as to any failure on the part of appellant as to nondisclosure of any fact material for assessment during original assessment proceeding.

4. Appellant pray that disallowance made be deleted.

5. The appellant crave your honour's leave to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing or before.”

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

Assessee is a private limited company and is engaged in the business of construction and property development. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 29/09/2012 declaring total income at Rs. 1,93,39,494/-. The assessment was thereafter completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on

23/05/2015 assessing total income at Rs. 1,96,62,711/-.

2.1. Subsequently, the case of assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice on 28/03/2019 by recording following reasons:-

“It is seen from records that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.80IA of Rs.4,69,76,429/- in respect of its project Rupa Technopark. As per the Notification, a minimum of 52 units was to be allotted in the premises to become eligible for the allowance of deduction. The assessee has not complied with the said provision, as from the details filed by the assessee it is not clear that minimum 52 units have been allotted in the project Platinum Technopark to become eligible to claim the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. Since, the assessee has not complied with the necessary condition, the assessee is not eligible to claim the deduction u/s.80IA amounting to Rs.4,69,76,429/-. It is further seen from records that the records that in Profit & Loss account assessee has shown purchase of stock-in-trade of Rs.2,69,08,750/- and the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.80IA on the value of purchase of stock-in-trade as well. As per the provisions of section 80IA deduction is permissible only of development and not on resale.

Accordingly, the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s.80IA on purchase of stock-in-trade.

The case is fit to be reopened with reference to the provisions u/s.

147/148 of the Income Tax Act.