Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2465 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
25-06-2021
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
DB-B
Next Hearing Date
13-05-2021
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
06-12-2018
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 2272 & 2273/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2013-14 & 2014-15 ITA NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 2272/HYD/18 2013-14 DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD M/S.JANAPRIYA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD [PAN: AABCJ9001E] 2273/HYD/18 2014-15 M/S.JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD [PAN: AAACE4560A] FOR REVENUE : SHRI ROHIT MUJUMDAR, DR FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI A.SRINIVAS, AR DATE OF HEARING : 13-05-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-06-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : THESE TWO REVENUES APPEALS FOR AYS.2013-14 & 2014- 15 ARISE FROM THE CIT(A)-11, HYDERABADS ORDER DATED 30- 08-2018 PASSED IN CASE NO.02 & 440/2016-17 & 2017-18/2018- 19/CIT(A)-11 HYD/18-19, INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S.1 43(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHORT, THE ACT]. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILES PERUSED. ITA NOS. 2272 & 2273/HYD/2018 :- 2 -: 2. THE REVENUE HAS PROPOSED THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN THE FORMER AY.2013-14 APPEAL ITA NO.2272/HYD/2018: 1.WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE MADE UNDER SECTION 80IA(4)(IV) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE SAID CLAIM. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN LAW IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4)(IV) OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE CON DITION IMPOSED THAT NO SINGLE UNIT SHALL OCCUPY MORE THAN 50% OF T HE ALLOCABLE AREA OF AN INDUSTRIAL PARK? 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF PROFIT F ROM JV TO MAT INCOME IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF M/S.B.SEENAIAH & CO. PROJECTS LTD. VIDE ITA NO.433/ HYD/2009? 3. WE NOTICE AT THE OUTSET WITH THE ABLE ASSISTANCE OF BOT H THE PARTIES THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GONE BY HIS DETAILED DISC USSION IN AY.2008-09 DELETING THE VERY NATURE OF SECTION 80-IA (4) DEDUCTION DISALLOWANCE FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THIS TAXP AYER HAD LET OUT MORE THAN 50% OF THE AREA TO A SINGLE TENANT. BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE INFORMED US VERY FAIRLY THA T THIS CO- ORDINATE BENCHS DECISION IN REVENUES APPEAL NO.1746/HYD/2016, AY.2011-12 DECIDED ON 07-04-2017 HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR DT.13-11-2006 AS WELL AS A CATENA OF OTHER CO-ORDINATE BENCHS ORDERS THEREBY DECL INING THE DEPARTMENTS VERY GRIEVANCE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT TH ERE IS NO DISTINCTION IN THE ABOVE EXTRACTED PLEADINGS ON FACTS IN ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS QUA THE ASSESSEES ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING. WE THUS ADOPT JUDICIAL CONSISTENCY TO AFFI RM THE CIT(A)S ACTION DELETING THE IMPUGNED SECTION 80-IA FO R DEDUCTION DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,47,72,990/-. THE REVE NUES ITA NOS. 2272 & 2273/HYD/2018 :- 3 -: SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE AS WELL AS THE MAIN APPEAL ITA NO.2272/HYD/2018 FAIL THEREFORE. 4. COMING TO REVENUES LATTER APPEAL ITA NO.2273/HYD/2018 AY.2014-15 WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A)S ORDER HAS REVERSED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION MAKING SE CTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,21,32,573/- FOR TH E SOLE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DERIVED ANY EXEMPT INC OME IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. CASE LAW: I. CIT VS. CHETTINAD LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., [80 TAXMANN.COM 221] (MADRAS); II. CIT VS. CORRTECH ENERGY PVT. LTD., [223 TAXMAN 130] (GUJ); III. CHEMINVEST LTD., VS. CIT (2015) [378 ITR 33] (DEL) HOLD THAT IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE PROVISION APPLIES ONL Y IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME THAN HAVING ANY INDEPENDENT EXIGIBILITY. WE THUS AFFIRM THE CIT(A)S CONCLUSION. THE REVENUE FAILS IN THE INSTANT LATTER APPEAL ITA NO.2273/HYD/2018 AS WELL. 5. THESE TWO REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED IN ABO VE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH JUNE, 2021 SD/- SD/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.G ODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 25-06-2021 TNMM ITA NOS. 2272 & 2273/HYD/2018 :- 4 -: COPY TO : 1.DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD. 2.M/S.JANAPRIYA PROPERTIES PVT.LTD., 8-2-120/86, PL OT NOS.11 & 12, KEERTHI AND PRIDE TOWERS, ROAD NO.2, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. 3.M/S.JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD., 8-2-120/86, PLOT NOS.11 & 12, KEERTHI AND PRIDE TOW ERS, ROAD NO.2, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. 4.CIT(APPEALS)-11, HYDERABAD. 5.PR.CIT-2, HYDERABAD. 6.PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-HYDERABAD. 7.D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 8.GUARD FILE.
Mehul