ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LTD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 731/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 October 2025AY 2020-2123 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18. The reasoning is based on the established principles of judicial discipline, which mandate that subordinate appellate authorities must follow the unreserved decisions of higher appellate authorities. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. and Khalid Automobiles Vs. Uol. These judgments clearly state that the mere fact that an order of the appellate authority is not acceptable to the Department or is the subject matter of a further appeal does not provide a ground for not following it, unless its operation has been stayed by a competent court. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly applied these principles by following the earlier decision of the ITAT in ITA No.33/2017 and others dated 25.08.2023. The operative direction is that the CIT(A)'s order is confirmed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s KMC Constructions Ltd., is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench. The appeals pertain to Assessment Year 2017-18. The orders under challenge are those of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Hyderabad, dated 16.09.2020, which confirmed the Assessing Officer's actions. The ITAT Hyderabad had previously dealt with similar matters in ITA No.33/2017 and others dated 25.08.2023. The judgment lists numerous infrastructure projects undertaken by the assessee, along with the respective contracting parties and contract values. The total value of these projects is substantial, indicating the scale of the assessee's operations. The procedural history indicates that the CIT(A) had allowed certain appeals, which were then confirmed by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18, thereby confirming the decisions of the ITAT in ITA No.33/2017 and others dated 25.08.2023. Assessee's Contention: The assessee relies on the principles of judicial discipline, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. (AIR 1992 SC 711) and Khalid Automobiles Vs. Uol (1995) (4 SCC (Suppl.) 652). These authorities establish that subordinate authorities are bound to follow the decisions of higher appellate authorities, including the jurisdictional Tribunal and High Court, unless their operation has been suspended by a competent court. The assessee argues that the CIT(A) correctly followed these precedents. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the Revenue against the assessee's submissions or the CIT(A)'s order.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

आदेशकी �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. िनधा�रती/The Assessee : M/s KMC Constructions Ltd., 1- 80/40/SP/58-65, Shilpa Homes, Gachibowli, Rangareddy Nagar, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad : The ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), R.No. 606, 6th Floor, 2. राज�/ The Revenue Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. LB Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500084. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Hyderabad 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गाड�फ़ाईल / Guard file

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →