Dy.CIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad V. M/s Annapurna Builders, Hyderabad

ITA 1055/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 105522514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y V S T SAI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1055/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE 6(1),HYDERABAD. M/S ANNAPURNA BUILDERS, HYDERABAD PAN AAEFA 9477F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SHRI Y.V.S.T. SAI ASSESSEE BY SHRI K.C. DEVDAS DATE OF HEARING 25-09-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22-10-2014 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IV, HYDERABAD, DATED 14.3.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL READ AS FOLLOWS- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FAC TS. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE DECI SION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE O F DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80IA(4)(III) OF THE I.T. ACT SINCE THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE SECTION A ND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE CL EARLY BROUGHT OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT . 2 ITA NO 1055/HYD/2014 M/S ANNAPURNA BUILDERS 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ONLY TH E CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IS EMPOWERED TO DENY DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA (4)(III) OF THE I.T. ACT AND ALSO CANNOT DENY THE DEDUCTION, WH EN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT THE VIOLATION S COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER THOROUGH ENQUIRIES. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT OF THE CASE IN AS MUCH AS THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE C ENTRAL GOVERNMENT CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT BENEFIT UNDER SE CTION 80IA(4)(III) IS TO BE AVAILED UPON ADHERING TO THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE NOTIFICATION AS WELL AS INDUSTRIAL PARK SCHEME, 2002. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF LEADING TO THE FILIN G OF THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE, ASSESSEE, A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S OF CONSTRUCTION, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON 29.09.2011, DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,01,04,202 AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS. 6,83,01,736 UNDER S.80IA(4)(III) O F THE ACT. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULFILL ED THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED FOR AVAILING DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IA(4)(I II) OF THE ACT, DISALLOWED THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMPL ETED THE ASSESSMENT ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 7,85,30,940 VID E ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 31.01.2014. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A), FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASES F OR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2010-11, DELETED THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT BEHALF. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THOUGH CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, HE NEVERTHELESS SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTE FOR BEING E LIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT DURING SURVEY 3 ITA NO 1055/HYD/2014 M/S ANNAPURNA BUILDERS OPERATION CONDUCTED UNDER S.133A OF THE ACT IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 11.8.2011, ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTIO N UNDER S.80IA(4)(III) WAS EXAMINED AND IT WAS FOUND THAT A SSESSEE HAS NOT FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80IA(4)(III). T HE FINDINGS OF SUCH EXAMINATION DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY HAVE ALSO B EEN COMMUNICATED TO THE CBDT, RECOMMENDING WITHDRAWAL O F THE APPROVAL GRANTED UNDER S.80IA(4)(III), AND THE NOTI FICATION IN THAT REGARD IS AWAITED. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTH ER HAND, STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SUBMITT ED THAT ITS CLAIM OF RELIEF UNDER S.80IA(4) HAS CORRECTLY BEEN ALLOWED B Y THE CIT(A) AND THE SAME SHOULD BE UPHELD. 7. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF T HE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR RELIEF UNDER S.80IA(4)(III) IS BASED ON THE DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1177/HYD/2011 DATED 3 0.11.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND IN ITA NO. 1316/HYD/201 3, DATED 05/02/2014 FOR AY 2010-11MERE COMMUNICATION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY ACTION TO THE CBDT DOES NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ASSESSEES CLAIM IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, INASMUCH AS THE CBDT HAS NEITHER WITHDRAWN THE ALLOWANCE UND ER S.80IA(4)(III) ALREADY GIVEN FOR EARLIER YEARS, NOR WITHDRAWN THE APPROVALS AND NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED IN THAT BEHALF. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BEING ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND 2010-11 AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE FOR THE YEAR UN DER APPEAL BEING SIMILAR, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A). WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME, REJECTING THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL. 4 ITA NO 1055/HYD/2014 M/S ANNAPURNA BUILDERS 8. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/10/2014 SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 22 ND OCTOBER, 2014 KV COPY TO:- 1) THE DCIT, CIRCLE 6(1), 7 TH FLOOR, D BLOCK, IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 2) M/S ANNAPURNA BUILDERS, 6-3-1192, KUNDAN BAGH, B EGUMPET, HYDERABAD 3) CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD 4) CIT-III, HYDERABAD 5)THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDER ABAD.