Madhucon Projects Ltd, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1203/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6077 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P SOMASEKHAR REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 260A; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.1203/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 M/S. MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN AABCM4757A VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. P. MURALIMOHAN RAO FOR REVENUE : MR. P. SOMASEKHAR REDDY DATE OF HEARING : 18.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 .01 .201 6 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF 263 OF PR. CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD DATED 09.09.201 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LD. PR.CIT (CENTRAL), HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S.263 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 154 OF THE ACT BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. 2. THE LD. PR.CIT (CENTRAL) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT AN ORDER PASSED BY AO GIVING EFFECT TO ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT. 2 ITA.NO.1203/HYD/2015 M/S. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD. 3. THE LD. PR.CIT (CENTRAL) HAS ERRED IN OBSERVING THA T THERE IS NO RECORD OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT THE AO HAS CALLED FOR THE DETAILS AND EXAMINED VARIOUS CONDITIONS IMPOSED U/S. 80LA FOR ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION. 4. THE LD. PR.CIT (CENTRAL) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FURNISHED THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM U/S. 80LA FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) DATED 31.12.2009 WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE A.O.S FINDINGS AT PARA NOS. 3 TO 27 OF THE ORDER. 5. THE LD. PR.CIT (CENTRAL) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE AO HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM U/S. 801A IN THE ORDER U/ S. 154 DATED 07.04.2013 AFTER THOROUGH VERIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION WHICH IS ALREADY IN HIS POSSESSION. 6. THE LD. PR.CIT (CENTRAL) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE AO, IN THE SEARCH ASSESSMENT COMPLETED FOR THE YEAR U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153A DATED 31.03.2013, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM U/S. 80LA NOT BASED ON FACTS BUT ON TECHNICALITIES INASMUCH AS THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL U/ S. 260A ON THE SAME ISSUE IN THE CASE OF M/S. GVPR ENGINEERS. 7. THE LD. PR.CIT (CENTRAL) ERRED IN IGNORING THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AT PARA NO.2 OF THE ORDER U/ S. 154 DATED 07.04.2013 THAT THE DEDUCTION U/ S. 80LA IS ALLOWED AFTER VERIFYING THE CLAIM. 8. THE LD. PR.CIT (CENTRAL), OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM U/S.80IA AFTER DUE VERIFICATION AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE HONBLE ITAT. 9. THE LD. PR.CIT (CENTRAL), ERRED IN PASSING THE REVISIONARY ORDER U/S. 263 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT IS SUB JUDICE BEFORE THE 3 ITA.NO.1203/HYD/2015 M/S. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD. JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE SAME CANNOT BE TAKEN UP FOR REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. 10. THE LD. PR.CIT (CENTRAL), OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ONCE CERTAIN CLAIM IS ALLOWED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, THE SAME CANNOT BE DISALLOWED MERELY BASED ON SUSPICION AND SURMISES WITHOUT BRINGING ANY CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 11. THE LD. PR.CIT (CENTRAL), OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2000)-243-ITR - 0083-(SC). 12. THE ASSESSEE MAY ADD, ALTER, OR MODIFY OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OTHER POINTS TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT AND HAS FILED RETURN O F INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.47,27,22,240. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT FILED A REVISED RETURN DECLARING T OTAL INCOME OF RS.8,71,79,890 CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA TO AN EXTENT OF RS.37,51,47,551. IN TH E SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 31.12.2009, THE A.O. DISCUSSED THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80IA ELABORATELY FROM PAGE 2 TO 20 (UPTO PARA 27) AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM HOLDING THA T ASSESSEE IS ONLY WORKS CONTRACTOR, THERE ARE NO AGREEMENTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT, PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 80IA ARE NOT SATISFIED. THIS ORDER OF A.O. IS THE S UBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 10.01.2011 CONFIRMED A.OS STAND AND DISALLOW ED 4 ITA.NO.1203/HYD/2015 M/S. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD. THE CLAIM. ON FURTHER APPEAL WITH THE ITAT, THE ITA T VIDE ORDER IN ITA.NO.1970/HYD/2011 REMITTED THE MATTER T O THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS : 36. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, A S THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SAME, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND TO SEE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CARRIED ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES CUMULATIVELY WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT, DEFECT CORRECTION OF THE CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. IN THE EVENT, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF CARRIED ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES/CONTRACT ALONG WITH DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT, DEFECT CORRECTION OF THE CONTRACT DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD, THEN SUCH CONTRACT TO BE CONSIDERED AS A DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREBY ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE ACT. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 2.1. IN THE MEANTIME, THERE WERE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS IN THE ASSESSEES PREMISES ON 04.02.2011 CONSEQUENT TO WHICH, PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A WERE INITIATED. IN THE ORDER PASSED UN DER SECTION 153A R.W.S. 143(3) DATED 31.03.2013, THE A. O. ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ITAT HAS DISPOSED THE APPEALS BY STATING AS UNDER : 4. FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, ASSESSI NG THE INCOME AT RS.56,83,45,275. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) IN HI S 5 ITA.NO.1203/HYD/2015 M/S. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD. ORDER DATED 04.02.2011 GAVE PARTIAL RELIEF. THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE ITAT, HYDERABAD. THE HONBLE ITAT, HYDERABAD IN ITS ORDER DATED 28.12.2012 DISPOSED OFF BOTH THE APPEALS. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WA S ARRIVED AT RS.19,31,97,724, CONSEQUENT TO GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, HYDERABAD. 2.2. EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IS SPECIFIC , FOR EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUES AFRESH, THE A.O. VIDE PARA-14 HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE REASO N THAT THE JUDGMENT RELIED ON BY THE ITAT WAS APPEALED AGA INST AND HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE OR DER OF A.O. IN PARA 14.1 TO 14.2 ON THE ISSUE ARE AS UN DER : 14.1. AS SEEN FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 37,51,47,551/-. THE HON'BLE ITAT, HYDERABAD WHILE DISPOSING THE APPEALS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND 2008-09 HAS OPINED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE I.T. ACT, 1 961, FOR THE BOT PROJECTS AND INFRA PROJECTS AS ENVISAGE D IN THE LEGISLATION. FURTHER, DIRECTED THE A.O. TO EXAMINE SUCH CASES AND ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA TO THE ELIGIBLE PROJECTS. WHILE PRONOUNCING THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS APART FROM QUOTING VARIOUS CASE IAWS, THE HON'BLE BENCH OF ITAT, HYDERABAD HAS RELIED ON ITS OWN JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF M/ S. GVPR ENGINEERS. 14.2. THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE CASE OF M/ S. GVPR ENGINEERS AND A FURTHER APPEAL TO THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IS ALREADY PREFERRED U/S. 260A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. KEEPING IN VIEW TH E STAND TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT WITH REGARDS TO THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA AND TO KEEP THE ISSUE WITH REGARDS TO ELIGIBILITY FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IA ALIVE, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE 6 ITA.NO.1203/HYD/2015 M/S. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD. ASSESSEE U/S.80IA IS NOT ALLOWED AND THE SAME IS ADDED BACK. 2.3. HAVING DECIDED TO REJECT THE CLAIM ON THE BAS IS OF THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES, THE A.O. IMMEDIATELY THERE AFTER ON 07.04.2013 I.E., WITHIN THE WEEK, HAS ALLOWED THE C LAIM IN AN ORDER U/S 154 BY STATING AS UNDER : 2. HOWEVER, THIS IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, AS IN THE INSTANT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08, THE HONBLE ITAT IN ITS ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 IN ITS ORDER NO.ITA/1970/HYD/2011 HAS DIRECTED FOR EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED THE SAME. AFTER VERIFYING THE CLAIM, THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IA IS ALLOWED. 2.4. THE LD. CIT NOTICED THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT CARRIED OUT THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT NOR EXAMINED THE ISSUES AND THEREFORE, INITIATED PROCEEDINGS UNDER S ECTION 263 BY ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS UNDER : IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.153A R.W.S.143(3), THE A.O. HAD ORIGINALLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE I.T. ACT. HOWEVER, VIDE ORDER U/S.154, DATED 07.04.2013 THE A.O. ALLOWED THE CLAIM STATING THAT THE HONBLE ITAT IN ITS ORDER FOR A.Y. 2007-08 IN ITA.NO.1970/HYD/2011 HAS DIRECTED FOR EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE A.O. HOWEVER, THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE A.O. HAD CONDUCTED PROPER ENQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION BEFORE ALLOWING THE CLAIM. THUS, THE ORDER WAS PASSED U/S.154 BY THE A.O. IS WITHOUT PROPER INVESTIGATION AND THE SAME IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 7 ITA.NO.1203/HYD/2015 M/S. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD. 2.5. IT WAS ARGUED BEFORE THE LD. CIT THAT : 4 (A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER AFTER VERIFYING ALL THE DETAILS OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. (B) THE A.O. HAS RECTIFIED HIS MISTAKE IN THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER AS HE HAS NOT GIVEN EFFECT TO T HE ORDER OF THE ITAT. AFTER DUE VERIFICATION, THE AO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED U/S. 154 OF THE I. T, .A CT DATED 7-4-2013 IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. (C) THE AR ARGUED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER IN WHICH THE CLAIM U/S.80IA HAS BEEN ALLOWED. THEREFORE, IT IS PERTINE NT TO MENTION HERE THAT WITH REGARD TO ALLOWANCE OF TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.80IA OF THE ACT IS SUB- JUDICE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE TAKEN UP IN REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 OF THE I.T. ACT. (D) THE ASSESSEE'S AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT WHEN ONCE THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED BY ITAT, THE SAME CANNOT BE DISALLOWED AGAIN MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES WITHOUT BRINGING ANY NEW CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. (E) WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE PR.CIT DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. (H) THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE REQUISITE INFORMATION AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS. THE PR. 8 ITA.NO.1203/HYD/2015 M/S. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PROPOSING TO REVISE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2.6. LD. CIT HOWEVER DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS AND HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNDER SECTI ON 154 DATED 07.04.2013, WITH A DIRECTION TO THE A.O. TO E XAMINE THE CLAIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT AND ALLOW SUCH CLAIM AS ADMISSIBLE IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF ITAT. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND RAISED THE A BOVE GROUNDS. 3. LD. COUNSEL REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS EXAM INED AND ALLOWED THE SAME IN AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 154. THEREFORE, LD. CIT WAS PRECLUDED IN INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY ANOTHER ORDER DATED 31.01.2013 AND N OT IN THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2013. THEREFORE, THE PROCE EDINGS WERE WRONGLY INITIATED ON THIS ORDER. HE ALSO RELIE D ON VARIOUS CASE LAW TO SUBMIT THAT JURISDICTION TO INV OKE THE PROVISIONS OF 263 ARE NOT CORRECT. 4. LD. D.R. HOWEVER, PLACED ON RECORD THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE A.O. AND PARTICULARLY THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2013 WHEREIN THE DIRECTION OF ITAT ON 80IA WA S NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF CONSIDERATION AND ONLY IN THE ORD ER DATED 07.04.2013, A.O. ALLOWED THE CLAIM WITHOUT AN Y EXAMINATION. 9 ITA.NO.1203/HYD/2015 M/S. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND EXAMINED THE ORDERS PLACED ON RECORD ALONG WITH SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AS STATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL IN THE WRITTEN FORMAT. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF SECTION 80IA IS CONCERNED, AS BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE SAME BY A REVISED RETURN, WHEN IT HAS MADE NO CLAIM ORIGINALLY IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. A.O. DID EXAMINE THE ISSUE ELABORATELY AND CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT ASS ESSEE IS ONLY A WORKS CONTRACTOR AND NOT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPER. THE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE TO THE A.O. TO EXAMINE AFRESH WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS BY THE ITAT , WHETHER ASSESSEE CAN BE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA. THIS DIRECTION OF THE ITAT HAS NOT BE EN CARRIED FORWARD, IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A EVEN T HOUGH THE A.O. ACKNOWLEDGES THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DATED 28.12.2012 IN PARA-4 OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 153 A. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE OTHER DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT IN THE REVENUE APPEAL, THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN ASSESSE ES APPEAL WERE NOT IMPLEMENTED BY THE A.O. THERE SEEMS TO BE NO EXAMINATION IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDE R SECTION 153A. IN FACT, A.O. SHOULD HAVE GIVEN EFFEC T TO THE ITAT ORDER IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A IT SELF, AS THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT WERE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE ORDER. AS BRIEFLY STATED ABOVE, A.O. RE JECTED THE CLAIM, NOT ON EXAMINATION OF FACTS BUT ON LEGAL PRINCIPLES THAT THE JUDGMENT OF GVPR ENGINEERS LTD. , VS. ACIT 51 SOT 207 (HYD.) (URO) WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND FURTHER APPEAL TO HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS ALSO PREFE RRED UNDER SECTION 260A. IN FACT, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ALSO, 10 ITA.NO.1203/HYD/2015 M/S. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD. THERE IS AN APPEAL TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ON LEG AL PRINCIPLES. 5.1 BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE A.O . TO EXAMINE EACH PROJECT AND GIVE A FINDING WHETHER ASS ESSEE HAS DEVELOPED AN INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY ON ITS OWN OR EXECUTED WORKS CONTRACT. AS SEEN FROM THE ORDER UND ER SECTION 143 PASSED ON 31.12.2009, THE THEN A.O. HAS GIVEN DETAILED PROJECTS, ROAD PROJECTS, BOT RELATED PROJECTS, IRRIGATION PROJECTS AND ALSO ROLE OF THE ASSESSEE. WITHOUT EXAMINING THE NATURE OF PROJECT OR CALLING FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE ASSESSEE IN EXECUTING VARIOUS PROJECTS AND FURTHER WITHOUT GIVI NG ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT A.O. HAD WRONGLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM, THAT TOO IN AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 154. AS EXTRACTED ABOVE, THE ORDER IS SO CURSORY AND NOTHING CAN BE MADE OUT WHETHER A.O. EXAMINED ALL THE ISSUES AS DIRECTED BY THE ITAT. SI NCE THE DIRECTION OF THE ITAT HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN I TS CORRECT PERSPECTIVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT IS WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTIO N UNDER SECTION 263 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.04.201 3 WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-EXAMINE AND ALLOW ACCORDINGLY. SI NCE THE ITAT DIRECTIONS ARE NOT IMPLEMENTED IN ITS CORRECT PERSPECTIVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 IS TO BE UPHELD. 6. ANOTHER ARGUMENT RAISED BY LD. COUNSEL IS THAT A.O. DECIDED THE ISSUE NOT IN THE ORDER DATED 11 ITA.NO.1203/HYD/2015 M/S. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD. 07.03.2013 BUT IN EARLIER ORDER DATED 31.01.2013 OR 04.03.2011 WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD. WE HAVE PERU SED THOSE ORDERS AND FIND THAT THE ISSUE UNDER SECTION 80IA WAS NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF RECTIFICATION IN THOSE OR DERS. THEREFORE, THIS ARGUMENT OF LD. COUNSEL IS REJECTED . GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.01.2016. SD/- SD/- (D.MANMOHAN) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) VICE PRESIDNET ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 27 TH JANUARY, 2016 VBP/- COPY TO 1. M/S. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD. C/O. M/S. P. MURALI & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6-3-655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD-82. 2. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3 , HYDERABAD. 3 . PR. CIT( CENTR AL ), 3 RD FLOOR, POSNET BHAVAN, TILAK ROAD, KING KOTI, HYDERABAD 500 001. 4 . ADDL. CIT, C.R.3, HYDERABAD. 6. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD 7. GUARD FILE