ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, NAGPUR vs. M/S GONDWANA ENGINEERS LTD , NAGPUR

Date of Hearing – 05/08/2024 Date of Order – 14/08/2024

O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M.

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 13/07/2020, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–1, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015–16.

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law; the Ld. CIT(Appeals), Nagpur has erred in treating the assessee as contractor but it was seen that the assessee was worked under M/s Doshin Veolia Water Solution Pvt. Ltd. who is the principal contractor hence the assessee is sub- contractor and the deduction claimed u/s 80IA (4)(b) is not allowed to the assessee.

M/s. Gondwana Engineers Ltd. ITA no.111/Nag./2020

2. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law; the Ld. CIT(Appeals), Nagpur has erred in accepting contrasting view that at one point assessee has entered into Joint Venture and executed three projects namely (1) Stp. Ludhiana (ii) Stp 50MLD Jalandhar and (iii) Stp MLD Nagolkarar, Jalandhar and on the same project assessee himself has claimed deduction /s 801A, whereas he can only be termed as sub-contractor for these projects.

3. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law; the Ld. CIT(Appeals), Nagpur has erred in allowing relief to the assessee from the addition made by the AO u/s 36(i) (va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) without appreciating the fact that CBDT vide Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 has clarified that Apex Court decision in the case of M/s Alom extrusion P. Ltd. & other co. is not applicable for disallowance u/s 36(i) (va).

CIT(A)–1/298/2017–18 अपील स ांख्य / Order No. CIT(A)–1/115/2018–19 / Date of order 13/07/2020

4. However, common grounds of appeal have been filed considering both the years under consideration together while the Grounds no.1 and 2, which arise out of appeal no.298, whereas Ground no.3, arise out of appeal no.115. The first two grounds emanate out of the assessment order whereas the third ground is activated out of the order for rectification. Since the learned CIT(A)’s orders are different and distinct, the Revenue ought to have filed two separate appeals against these orders. In our opinion, this is a technical error which could have been set right only by filing separate appeals, which the Revenue had indubitably failed to do so. Accordingly, we hold this appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, liberty is hereby granted to the Revenue to file two separate appeals with fresh grounds of appeals separately. Page | 2

M/s. Gondwana Engineers Ltd. ITA no.111/Nag./2020