9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 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 assessee's premises on 04.02.2011 consequent to which, proceedings under section 153A were initiated. In the order passed under 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, assessing the income at Rs. 56,83,45,275. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) in his order dated 04.02.2011 gave partial relief. The assessee as well as the department preferred appeal before ITAT, Hyderabad. The Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad in its order dated 28.12.2012 disposed off bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, initiated proceedings under section 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 Hon'ble 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." 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 the order of the ITAT. After due verification, the AO allowed the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter of consideration and only in the order dated 07.04.2013, A.O. allowed the claim without any examination. 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 assessee 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 been carried forward, in the proceedings u/s 153A even though the A.O. acknowledges the order of the ITAT dated 28.12.2012 in para-4 of the order under section 153A. While giving effect to the other directions of the ITAT in the Revenue appeal, the directions given in assessee's appeal were not implemented by the A.O. There seems to be no examination in the course of proceedings under section 153A. In fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
