SMR BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 April 2021AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not furnished sufficient evidence earlier and the CIT(A) failed to admit additional evidence or obtain a remand report. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s order upholding additions made by the AO. The assessee sought to submit additional evidence before the Tribunal, which was not admitted by the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not allowing additional evidence and denying deduction under Section 80IB, and upholding additions under Section 14A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IB,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI S.S. GODARA

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Subramanyam
For Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Hearing: 10/03/2021Pronounced: 07/04/2021

All the captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad in appeal Nos. 053 to 059/CC- 1(2)/CIT(A)-11/14-15, dated 31/08/2016 pased U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the AYs 2007-08 to 2012-13.

2.

The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeals however, the cruxes of the issues are that the:-

(i) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing the additional evidence to substantiate the claim of the assessee. (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in denying the assessee’s claim of deduction U/s. 80IB of the Act. (iii) The Ld. CIT(A) had erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. A.O. u/s. 14A of the Act.

At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the 3. assessee has filed additional evidence before the Tribunal as the same was not admitted by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. AR further submitted that the additional evidence relates to the substantial additions made by the Ld. AO which was further sustained by the ld. CIT (A). It was further submitted that due to several constraints the assessee was unable to furnish the same before the Ld.AO on the earlier instance. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO for de- novo consideration in order to avoid miscarriage of the justice, otherwise it would bring irreparable loss to the assessee.

4.

The Ld. DR on the other hand, vehemently argued for sustaining the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities since the Ld. Revenue Authorities have provided proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On perusing the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, we find that the assessee has not furnished sufficient evidence before the ld. Revenue Authorities and therefore, the Revenue had no other option but to make substantial additions in the hands of the assessee. This lapse on the part of the assessee is not appreciable. However, it would have been appropriate on the part of Ld.CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence filed before him and after obtaining a remand report from the Ld.AO pass a speaking Order which he has failed to do so. Since now the assessee has furnished fresh evidence before the Tribunal and since the addition made by the Ld. Revenue Authorities is substantial, in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the entire matter back to the file of the ld. AO for de-novo consideration with direction to admit and examine the additional evidence filed by the assessee or any evidence filed at the time of hearing and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merit. We also caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. Revenue Authorities failing which they shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order based on the materials on record.

6.

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.

Pronounced in the open Court on the 07th April, 2021.

More judgments on Section 80IB

All 1,094 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →