Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Acit, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad, ... vs Annapurna Builders, Hyderabad, ... on 22 March, 2017
1
ITA.No.1743/Hyd/2016
M/s. Annapurna Builders, Hyderabad.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES "B" : HYDERABAD
BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT
AND
SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA.No.1743/Hyd/2016
Assessment Year 2013-2014
The ACIT, Circle-6(1) vs. M/s. Annapurna Builders
Hyderabad. Hyderabad.
PAN AAEFA9477F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
For Revenue : Shri K.J. Rao
For Assessee : -None-
Date of Hearing : 22.03.2017
Date of Pronouncement : 22.03.2017
ORDER
PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by CIT(A)-VI, Hyderabad and it pertains to the A.Y. 2013-2014. Following grounds were urged before us :
1. "The Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and facts.
2. The Ld. CIT(A)'s decision that the appellant cannot be denied claim of deduction u/s.80IA(40(iii), until the approval is withdrawn by the Central Govt./CBDT, is erroneous.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the said approval is subject to satisfaction of conditions laid down in statute and violation of conditions would compel the A.O. to deny the claim.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that it is both the prerogative and responsibility of the A.O. to examine whether the conditions specified therein are violated or not and to disallow the claim if found to be ineligible.2 ITA.No.1743/Hyd/2016
M/s. Annapurna Builders, Hyderabad.
5. Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time of hearing."
2. At the outset, it may be noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) followed the decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case for the earlier two years while directing the A.O. to allow deduction to assessee under section 80IA(4) of the Act. The relevant portion of the order of the CIT(A) is reproduced.
2. "The appellant's income includes rental income from Block I and II of 'White House' and business income from Block III, of which the latter was claimed entirely as deduction u/s.80IA(4)I(iii). The appellant submitted that Block III of the building had been operated and maintained as an Industrial Park under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 after obtaining the due approvals from the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, as well as the CBDT, New Delhi. The A.O. disallowed the deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iii).
3. The issue raised by the A.O. were decided by the undersigned in the favour of the appellant for the A.Y. 2012-13 in view of the order of the ITAT, Hyderabad in ITA.No.1055/Hyd/2014 dated 22.10.2004 for A.Y. 2011-12. On Revenue's appeal for the A.Y. 2012-13, the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad vide its order dated 23.12.2015 in ITA.No.1268/Hyd/2015 has upheld order of the CIT(A). The facts of the case for the year under consideration are identical with those in the earlier years. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the ITAT and the appellate orders in the appellant's own case for the preceding years, as cited above, the appeal of the assessee on this issue is allowed."
3. Ld. D.R. admitted that the issue stands covered by the decision of the ITAT. In fact, assessee placed before us copy of the order of the ITAT, 'A' Bench, Hyderabad in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2012-2013 wherein identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
3 ITA.No.1743/Hyd/2016M/s. Annapurna Builders, Hyderabad.
4. Under these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by CIT(A). As pronounced in the open Court, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.03.2017.
Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, Dated 22nd March, 2017 VBP/- Copy to
1. The ACIT, Circle-6(1), 6th Floor, 'B' Block, I.T. Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.
2. M/s. Annapurna Builders, 6-3-1192, Kundanbagh, Begumpet, Hyderabad.
3. CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad.
4. Pr. CIT-6, Hyderabad.
5. D.R. ITAT "B" Bench, Hyderabad.
6. Guard File