TAKSHASHILA REALTIES PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF ERSTWHILE TAKSHASHILA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2) CURRENT JURISDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case by upholding the disallowance of claim of deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act amounting to Rs.2,93,76,226/-.

3. Before us, at the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not cause appearance before the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, the CIT(A) had confirmed the additions on ex-parte basis in the hands of the assessee by making a specific observation that Ld. CIT(A) is constrained to concur with the Assessing Officer’s findings of facts more particularly in the absence of any meaningful and worthwhile submissions / documents during the appellate proceedings to effectively counter the position adopted by the Assessing Officer. The Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that there was a valid reason for non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A), which was for the reason that in the Form 35 filed before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had given the e-mail address of one of it’s employees. However, at the time when the notices were issued by the Ld. CIT(A), such employee had left the employment of the assessee company and therefore, the notices of hearing issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were not received by the assessee. The Counsel for Takshashila Realties Pvt. Ltd.(Successor of erstwhile Takshashila Properties Ltd.) vs. ACIT(Current Jurisdiction DCIT) Asst.Year –2010-11 - 3– the assessee also filed an Affidavit in support of the above contention. Therefore, it was submitted before us that since the assessee company was not in receipt of notices of hearing from the office of Ld. CIT(A), it could not cause appearance in response to these notices and did not get effective opportunity to present it’s case on merits.

4. The Counsel for the assessee also submitted that in the instant case, substantial additions have been made by the Assessing Officer to the return of income of the assessee and looking into the quantum of additions, in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de- novo consideration. Further, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that even on merits, the assessee has a good on merits and our attention was drawn to the order passed by the ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10, where substantial relief was granted to the assessee with respect to the issue of claim of addition under Section 80-IB(10) of the Act. The Counsel for the assessee also produced before us the relevant order passed by ITAT in assessee’s own case for our perusal. Further, with respect to addition under Section 115JB of the Act, the Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to ITAT order in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 dated 29.05.2024 wherein this issue had been decided by the ITAT in favour of the assessee. Our attention was drawn to Pages 157-158 of the Paper Book, wherein the ITAT had decided the same issue in favour of the assessee in it’s order for A.Y. 2010-11. Regarding the third addition relating to disallowance of labour expenses amounting to Rs. 63,33,965/-, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not provide the relevant details regarding labour expenses to the Assessing Officer since during the relevant time the records of the assessee had been seized by the Sales Tax Department. However, the Counsel for the assessee submitted

Takshashila Realties Pvt. Ltd.(Successor of erstwhile Takshashila Properties Ltd.) vs. ACIT(Current Jurisdiction DCIT) Asst.Year –2010-11 - 4– that such records which had been seized by the Sales Tax Authorities have now been released and if given an opportunity, the assessee would be able to furnish the relevant supporting documents / evidences in support of claim of labour expenses. Accordingly, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in view of the above background, it is a fit case where the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, since firstly, the assessee for bona fide reasons, on account of non-receipt of notices of hearing from office of Ld. CIT(A), could not cause appearance during the first appellate proceedings and secondly, the assessee has a good case on merits and the issues under consideration have largely been allowed in favour of the assessee by Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case for preceding assessment years.

5. In response, Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations made by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order.

Takshashila Realties Pvt. Ltd.(Successor of erstwhile Takshashila Properties Ltd.) vs. ACIT(Current Jurisdiction DCIT) Asst.Year –2010-11 - 5– and to promptly and diligently comply with all notices of hearing issued by the office of Ld. CIT(A) and in case of any further non-compliance on the part of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders on the basis of material available on record, in accordance with law.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 07/08/2024

Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 07/08/2024 TRUE COPY TANMAY, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,