M/S SRIRAM CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2073/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 September 2020AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper hearing and merely reproduced the AO's observations. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partnership firm, claimed deduction under Section 80IB(10) and filed its return of income at Nil. The Assessing Officer made several disallowances, including the Section 80IB claim, payments to landlords, cost of land, and creditors for repairs.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without proper hearing and independent findings. The validity of the disallowances made by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IB,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao
For Respondent: Shri Arvindakshan
Hearing: 02/09/2020Pronounced: 03/09/2020

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) – 7, dated 23/10/2017, Hyderabad for AY 2014-15

2.

Brief facts are that the assessee is a Partnership Firm had filed its return of income for AY 2014-15 on 16/07/2014 admitting total income of Rs. Nil after claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10). The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act by making the following disallowances: a) Disallowance of claim u/s 80IB of the Act – Rs. 27,83,916/- b) Disallowance of payments made to land lords – Rs. 1,04,81,820/- c) Disallowance of cost of land - Rs. 6,97,125/- d) Disallowance of creditors for repairs & maintenance charges - Rs. 24,28,805/- 2 Sri Ram Constructions, Hyd.

3.

At the outset, we find that the order of ld. CIT(A) was passed ex-parte without securing the presence of the assessee or its Authorised Representative. From the perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A), we find that he had merely reproduced the observations made by the ld. AO verbatim without giving his independent findings on various disallowances made. The ld. AR also stated before us that the said claims were very much allowed to the assessee by ld. CIT(A) in subsequent years. We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to remand the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication on merits in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. We also direct the ld. CIT(A) to consider the subsequent years decisions passed by his predecessors while deciding the issue on merits. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open Court on 3rd September, 2020.

More judgments on Section 80IB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →