M/S SRIRAM CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD
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?
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
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) – 7, dated 23/10/2017, Hyderabad for AY 2014-15
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.
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.
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
- D.C.I.T., Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd., KolkataITA 740/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Tasa Foods Private Limited, Bangalore vs DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), BengaluruITA 2908/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Uflex Limited, Delhi vs DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir-II, NoidaITTPA 280/DEL/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2022-23
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs Uflex Limited, DelhiITTPA 272/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2020-21
- Uflex Limited, Pamposh Enclave, Greater… vs DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir-II, NoidaITTPA 260/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026