TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Hyderabad ("Ld. CIT(A)"), dated 31.12.2024 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 129 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition along with a copy of affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The Learned Authorised Representative ("Ld. AR") submitted that the assessee was in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19, in addition to the year under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) had passed orders in favour of the assessee for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19, against which the Revenue had preferred appeals before this Tribunal. When the assessee came to know about the filing of those appeals by the Revenue, it approached it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hold that sufficient cause exists for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 129 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. The impugned order of the learned Authorities below in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The Appellant denies himself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs. 168,59,14,797/-, as against the income returned an amount being Rs. Nil/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Whether t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fact that, the Appellant has executed the works and was responsible for designing, drawing, risk of project, execution of project, maintenance and defect liability etc., under the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Whether the learned Authorities below have erred in not appreciating the fact that, the Appellant is involved in design, development, operation and maintenance, and is eligible for claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act, of an amount being Rs. 168,59,14,797/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest under section 234B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The Appellant craves....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l before this Tribunal. 8. At the threshold of hearing, the Ld. AR fairly submitted that the facts of the present case are identical to those in the assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16, which had been decided by this Tribunal in ITA Nos.239 to 241/Hyd/2022, dated 11.12.2023, wherein the claim for deduction under section 80IA was disallowed and the appeals of the assessee were dismissed. He further submitted that the assessee has already filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16, and the same is still pending adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court. In view of the above facts, the Ld. AR prayed before the Bench to take an app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see while filing the return of income u/s 153A has sought to claim the refund and has claimed deduction u/s 80IA(4) for the first time. In this regard, though the issue has been considered by us elaborately while passing the decision in the case of Dy.CIT vs. HES Infra (P) Ltd, however, the important aspect is that the assessee was required to file the audit report along with the agreement with the said govt.deptt. etc., in the requisite format and claim the deduction. Now after a lapse of considerable period (original return of income was filed on 30.11.2013 and search took place on 25.10.2018), and the assessee has filed the return of income on 21.9.2019 claiming the deduction u/s 80IA(4) for the first time. Admittedly, the period for rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income shall not be less than the returned income. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the above said claim of the assessee is not required to be considered. In view of our above discussion, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed." 11. On perusal of above, we find that this Tribunal after detailed examination, held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 80IA of the Act as the claim was made for the first time in the return filed under section 153A of the Act and the assessment for the relevant years had already been completed under section 143(3) of the Act prior to the date of search. In the present case also, there is no dispute on the fact that the assessment for Assessment Year 2016-17 was ....