R.V.NIRMAAN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored both the Section 80-IB deduction disallowance and the MAT provisions issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was due to the lack of proof of proper service of notice for the lower appellate hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerned the disallowance of Section 80-IB deduction and the computation of MAT provisions. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order after the assessee failed to appear in lower appellate proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) order was valid given the lack of proof of service of notice for the hearing. Whether the disallowance of Section 80-IB deduction and computation of MAT provisions were correctly handled.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. :
This assessee’s appeal for AY.2012-13 arises from the CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad’s order dated 11-10-2018 passed in case No.10272/DCIT-3(1)/CIT(A)-3/2017-18, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Coming to assessee’s main pleadings CIT(A)’s action upholding the assessment findings disallowing its Section 80-IB deduction claim of Rs.2,47,33,809/- we find that it has also raised additional ground(s) that the Assessing Officer ought not to have computed Section 115JB MAT provisions once he had rejected its books of account.
Coupled with this, learned departmental representative took us to the CIT(A)’s order passed ex-parte after making it clear that assessee had failed to appear in lower appellate proceedings. He fails to dispute that there is no indication about actual service of the lower appellate hearing’s notice upon the assessee to this effect. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s main Section 80-IB deduction disallowance ground as well as the foregoing additional ground(s) back to the CIT(A) for his afresh adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. The assessee or its learned authorised representative shall appear before the CIT(A) on or before 30-09-2021; with all the relevant evidence, at its own risk and responsibility to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing.
This assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11th June, 2021
More judgments on Section 80-IB
- Zf Steering Gear (India) Limited, Pune vs DCIT Central Circle-15 Delhi, New DelhiITA 4383/DEL/2026[2004-05]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2004-05
- Zf Steering Gear (India) Limited, Pune vs DCIT Central Circle-15, Delhi, New DelhiITA 4382/DEL/2026[2003-04]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2003-04
- Zf Steering Gear (India) Limited, Pune vs DCIT Central Circle-15, New DelhiITA 4381/DEL/2026[2002-03]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2002-03
- Zf Steering Gear (India) Limited, New Delhi vs DCIT Central Circle-15, New DelhiITA 4380/DEL/2026[2001-02]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2001-02
- Zf Steering Gear (India) Limited, India vs DCIT, Central Circle - 15, DelhiITA 4379/DEL/2026[2000-01]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2000-01
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026