M/s Ramya Hospitals, Kakinada V. THE ITO, Kakinada

ITA 119/VIZ/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6407 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SATYANANDAM
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 133A; 80IB; 148; 139

Judgement Text

ITA NO.119/VIZAG/2015 M/S. RAMYA HOSPITALS, KAKINADA 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . , $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.119/VIZAG/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12) M/S. RAMYA HOSPITALS, KAKINADA ITO, WARD - 2, KAKINADA [PAN NO. AAIFR4508G ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T. SATYANANDAM, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 08.03.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.03.2017 / O R D E R PER SHRI MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), VISAKHAPATNAM AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASST. YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, RUNS A 100 BED HOSPITAL IN KAKINADA. A SURVEY U/S 133A WAS ITA NO.119/VIZAG/2015 M/S. RAMYA HOSPITALS, KAKINADA 2 CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 20-10-2010. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12 ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE U/S 139(1). THE A.O. ISSUED NOT ICE U/S 148 ON 1-11-2012. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 1-3-2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF NIL AF TER CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE A PPEARED AND PRODUCED THE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3), R.W.S. 147 ON 22-3-2013 DETERMINING THE TOT AL INCOME OF RS. 53,19,160/ BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/ S 80IB(11C) AMOUNTING TO RS. 29,46,986/-, FOR NON FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S139(1) AND ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 23,72,171/- TOWARDS D IFFERENCE IN GROSS RECEIPTS NOTICED DURING SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DISMISSED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE US AND RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING T HE ADDITION OF ` 23,72,171 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS ALL EGED UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS. ITA NO.119/VIZAG/2015 M/S. RAMYA HOSPITALS, KAKINADA 3 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTIMATE NET PROFIT ON THE ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS INSTEAD OF BRINGING THE WHOLE AMOUNT TO TA X. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATI ON IS DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IB(11C), FOR NON FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE F ACTUAL MATRIX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ESTABLISHED A 100 BED HOSPITAL IN KAKINADA WHICH QUALIFIES FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(11C), SUBJEC T TO FULFILLMENT OF PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DED UCTION U/S 80IB TOWARDS 100% PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM THE HOS PITAL. THE A.O. DISALLOWED DEDUCTION CLAIMED FOR THE REASON THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN U/S 139(1) WHICH IS MANDATORY FOR CLAI MING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD. A.R FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT E LIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB, MERELY FOR NON FILING OF RETURN US/ 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED A LL OTHER CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN THE SECTION, EXCEPT FILING RETURN ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE WHICH IS A PROCEDURAL LAPS FOR WHICH DEDUCTION CANN OT BE DENIED. SECTION 80IB(11C) IS INCENTIVE PROVISION, WHICH PROVIDES DE DUCTION FOR PROFITS DERIVED FROM ELIGIBLE PROJECTS FOR ENCOURAGEMENT OF SETTING UP HOSPITALS IN CERTAIN AREAS WHICH HAS TO BE INTERPRETED IN A M ANNER SO AS TO ADVANCE THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY OF THE REASON AND NOT TO DENY THE BENEFIT ITA NO.119/VIZAG/2015 M/S. RAMYA HOSPITALS, KAKINADA 4 ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED BELATED RETURN U/S 139(4) AND SECTION 139(4) WAS NOTHING BUT AN EXTENSION OF S.139(1) AND THEREFORE, RETURN FILED U /S 139(4) SHOULD BE DEEMED TO BE RETURN FILED WITHIN THE DUE DATE SPECI FIED U/S 139 OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTING ORDER OF THE CI T(A), SUBMITTED THAT IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE TAX PAYER TO FILE RETU RN U/S 139(1) TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IB AND IF SUCH RETURN IS NOT FILED ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE, THEN DEDUCTION IS NOT AVAILABLE U/S 80IB OF T HE ACT. THE LD. D.R. REFERRING TO THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON FILING RETURN OF INCOME, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING RETURN AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE PLAUSIBLE REASON FOR NOT FI LING RETURN, THEREFORE BENEFIT CANNOT BE EXTEND TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIALS ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO ENTITLEMENT OF D EDUCTION, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD SATISFIED CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN SEC TION 80IB, EXCEPT FILING RETURN ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE. THE ASSESSEE CLAI M OF DEDUCTION HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR ON FULFILLING CON DITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. IN THIS PARTICULAR Y EAR, THE ONLY DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO NON FILING OF RETURN BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR WHICH THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB HAS BEEN DENIED. THER EFORE, ONE HAS TO ITA NO.119/VIZAG/2015 M/S. RAMYA HOSPITALS, KAKINADA 5 EXAMINE WHETHER DEDUCTION U/S 80IB CAN BE ALLOWED, IF RETURN OF INCOME IS FILED U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT. NO DOUBT, THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 80IB, R.W.S. 80AC MANDATES FILING OF RETURN ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED U/S 139(1), FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 8 0IB OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IB, RETURN OF I NCOME SHOULD BE FILED ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 13 9(1) AND IF SUCH RETURN IS NOT FILED, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED F OR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. 7. SECTION 80IB(11C) IS A INCENTIVE PROVISION, WHIC H PROVIDES DEDUCTION FOR PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM ELIGIB LE PROJECTS FOR SETTING UP HOSPITALS IN CERTAIN AREAS. NO DOUBT, ANY INCENT IVE OR BENEFICIAL PROVISIONS HAS TO BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER SO AS TO ADVANCE THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY OF THE REGION AND NOT TO DENY THE BENEFIT ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS, I.E. NON FILING OF RETURN WITHIN DUE DATE ETC. BUT, IF A CONDITION IS PRESCRIBED IN THE STATUE WHICH MANDATES FILING R ETURN ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED U/S 139(1), THEN THE ASSESSEE SH OULD PROVE BEYOND DOUBT THE REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH PREVENTS FILING RE TURN OF INCOME ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE D ELAY IN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS DUE TO REASONS BEYOND ITS CONT ROL AND WAS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR DELIBERATE. THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING RETURN AND ATTRIBUTES DELAY FOR RECONCILIATI ON OF DIFFERENCE IN GROSS ITA NO.119/VIZAG/2015 M/S. RAMYA HOSPITALS, KAKINADA 6 RECEIPTS QUANTIFIED DURING SURVEY OPERATIONS. ON PE RUSAL OF REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS A REAS ONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING RETURN WITHIN THE DUE DATE REFERRED TO IN SE CTION 139(1). THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT DEDUCTION CANNOT BE DENIED WHEN THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING T HE RETURN. 8. COMING TO THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSES SEE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT, HYDERABA D IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S SRI. S. VENKATESH, IN ITA. NO. 984/HYD/2011 , WHICH WAS FURTHER UPHELD BY THE HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT IN ITTA.NO. 1 14 OF 2013. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, HYDERABAD IN THE SAID CAS E OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED ON TECHNICAL ITIES, WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS LEGALLY OTHERWISE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTIO NS. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED BELOW: 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 23.12.2008. THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN O F INCOME U/S. 139(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS 31.10.2008. AS SUCH THE RETURN FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS BELATED. IN THIS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S . 801C OF THE ACT WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TH E RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE TIME AS PRESCRIBE D U/S. 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN REASONS FOR DELAY IN FI LING THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREPARING ITS ACCOUNTS THROUGH COMPUTER AND THE COMPUTER GOT CORRUPTED DUE TO VIRUSES AND I N SPITE OF CONTINUOUS EFFORTS BY THE COMPUTER TECHNICAL PERSON NEL TO RETRIEVE THE DATA IN TIME FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME, PROBL EM PERSISTED IN THE SYSTEM. BY TRYING TO RETRIEVE THE DATA FOR 4 DAYS T HE REQUIRED DATA COULD NOT BE RETRIEVED AND THE BACKED UP DATA WERE AVAILABLE ONLY UP TO 31ST JANUARY, 2008 IN THE CD AND THE ENTIRE DATA FOR THE TWO MONTHS PERIOD, FEBRUARY AND MARCH, 2008, HAD TO BE RE-ENTE RED INTO THE COMPUTER SYSTEM AGAIN. ON PREPARATION OF THE FINAL ACCOUNTS AND FINALISING OF STATUTORY AUDIT IT TOOK A LITTLE EXTR A TIME THAT RESULTED IN ITA NO.119/VIZAG/2015 M/S. RAMYA HOSPITALS, KAKINADA 7 BELATED FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. THUS THERE WAS A DELAY OF 74 DAYS IN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH IS BEYOND THE CON TROL OF ASSESSEE. THIS WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE STATUTORY AUDITOR VI DE HIS LETTER DATED 20.3.2011. BEING SO, IN OUR OPINION THERE IS A REAS ONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME BELATEDLY AND THIS IS B EYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF JUST ICE INVOLVED TECHNICALITIES SHOULD BE IGNORED. FURTHER, WE ARE S UPPORTED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 1231 & 1199/HYD/2 010 IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S. VEGA CONVEYORS & AUTOMATION LTD. ORDE R DATED 31ST DECEMBER, 2010 WHEREIN IN PARA 5 OF THE ORDER THE T RIBUNAL HELD AS FOLLOWS: '5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, AND OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE CASE-LAW RELIED UPON BY THE P ARTIES. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CA SE HAS FILED THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 1OCCB DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ISSUE THAT ARISES FO R CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDE R S. 801B ON THE GROUND THAT THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 1 OCCB WAS NOT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME; OR WHETHER THE CIT (A) WAS CORRECT IN PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS OF FORM 1OCCB FI LED DURING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DIRECTI NG THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S. 801B OF THE ACT. IT IS SETTLED PO SITION OF LAW, AS CONSISTENTLY HELD BY VARIOUS BENCHES OF THIS TRI BUNAL AND AS HELD IN VARIOUS DECISIONS REFERRED TO BY THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THAT THOUGH FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10CCB IS MANDATORY AND PRE-REQUISITE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S. 801B, NON-FILING OF THE SAME ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME IS ONLY A CURABLE DEFECT, AND ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DED UCTION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON ITS MERITS AS AND WHEN THE DEFECT IS CURED BY FILING FORM 1OCCB. WE ARE FORTIFIED IN THIS BEHALF BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HEM SONS INDUSTRIES (SUPRA), RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCT ION UNDER S. 801B CAN BE ENTERTAINED AND EXAMINED ON MERITS, WHE N THE AUDIT REPORT IS FILED BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSE SSMENT, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE THE AU DIT REPORT WAS FILED ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH CANNOT EN D UP GIVING ADDITIONAL DEDUCTIONS/ BENEFITS TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND MERIT EVEN IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. IN THE CASE OF HEMSORIS INDUSTRIES ( SUPRA), BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, FOR ONE OF TH E YEARS UNDER APPEAL BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, VIZ., ASSESSMENT YEAR 1979- 80, AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF RE- ASSESSMENT ITA NO.119/VIZAG/2015 M/S. RAMYA HOSPITALS, KAKINADA 8 PROCEEDINGS AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTIC E UNDER S. 148 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS VIEW O F THE MATTER, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT CITED ABOVE, AMONG OTHERS, WE FIND NO JUSTIFI CATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE ACCORDIN GLY UPHOLD THE SAME AND REJECT THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN T HIS APPEAL.' 14. IN OUR OPINION, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION , THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED ON TECHNICALITIES WHEN TH E ASSESSEE IS LEGALLY OTHERWISE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION. AS SUCHWE ARE INCLINED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS DEVOID O F MERIT. 9. IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE A CT ON 22.10.2010. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, CERTAIN MATERIALS WERE IMPOUNDED TO QUANTIFY THE UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER. THE RETURN OF I NCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS DUE ON 31.7.2011. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN ON 1.3.2012. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE D ELAY IN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO RECONCILIATION OF TURNOVER QUANTIFIED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, WHICH IS HAVING NEXUS WITH IMPOUNDED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, BECAUSE OF THIS, THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE DUE DAT E SPECIFIED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS BEYOND ITS CONTROL. WE FIND TH AT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING RETURN OF INCOME WIT HIN THE DUE DATE IS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR AVOIDING FILING RETURN, WHI CH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN WITHIN THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT. WE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DEDUCT ION U/S 80IB(11C) OF THE ACT IS A BENEFICIAL PROVISION, WHICH ENTITLES T AX PAYERS DEDUCTION TOWARDS PROFIT DERIVED FROM THE HOSPITAL SET UP IN A SPECIFIED AREA TO ITA NO.119/VIZAG/2015 M/S. RAMYA HOSPITALS, KAKINADA 9 BOOST THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY OF THE LOCALITY. THERE FORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT DEDUCTION CANNOT BE DENIED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN WITHIN THE DUE DA TE U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, INSPITE THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR NOT FILING THE RETURN. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT, IN ITA NO.114 OF 2013 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. S. VENKA TESH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED DEDUCTION U /S 80IB(11C) OF THE ACT, ON TECHNICAL ISSUES WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS OTHER WISE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO ALLOW DEDU CTION U/S 80IB(11C) OF THE ACT. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 28 TH MAR17. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V. DURGA RAO) (G. MANJUNATHA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 28.03.2017 VG/SPS )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT M/S. RAMYA HOSPITALS, D.NO.9-1-3 0, GANDHINAGAR, KAKINADA 2. / THE RESPONDENT THE ITO, WARD-2, KAKINADA 3. + / THE CIT-2, VISAKHAPATNAM 4. + ( ) / THE CIT (A), VISAKHAPATNAM 5. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY //