PATEL KNR HEAVY INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD

We come to assessee’s identical substantive grievances seeking to reverse both the lower authorities’ action disallowing periodic maintenance expenses of Rs.4,51,60,000/-, Rs.4,55,00,000/- and Rs.4,77,00,000/- along with book profit addition pertaining to interest paid to delayed remittances in first and restricting amortization claim/depreciation pertaining to carried forward from Rs.31,66,27,276/- to Rs.29,03,76,568/- and Rs.32,95,86,471/- to Rs.31,63,14,343/-, assessment year- wise; respectively and find that the CIT(A)’s order affirming assessment findings to this effect.

Learned departmental representative vehemently contended during the course of hearing in light of CIT(A)’s order in AY.2013-14 para 5 that the assessee’s counsel had appeared only on 28-05-2018 despite several notices. He fails to dispute that even if it is held that the assessee had deliberately chosen not to appear in the lower appellate proceedings, the fact remains that the CIT(A) has nowhere adjudicated all the foregoing issues on merits vide a detailed discussion as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act.

Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to set aside assessee’s all substantive grounds raised in the instant three appeals back to the CIT(A) for afresh detailed adjudication within three effective opportunities of hearing, at its own risk and responsibility only. Ordered accordingly.

These assessee’s three appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.