IN INCOME TAX PPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 870/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year 2015-16 Naolin Infrastructure Pvt. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle 16(1), Hyderabad. PAN AAFCP 5359K Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar Revenue by Shri Rajat Mitra Date of hearing 24/09/2019 Date of pronouncement: 27/09/2019 O RDE R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. This is appeal filed by assessee against order of CIT(A) 4, Hyderabad dated 15/03/2019 dismissing assessee s appeal for non-appearance before him and also for not filing any evidence in support of its claim. 2. Brief facts of case are that assessee company filed its original return of income for AY 2015 -16 on 30/09/2015 admitting total income of Rs. 96,18,660/ -. 2.1 During course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of Act, assessee was required to furnish certa in information. AO observed that assessee is engaged in business of execution of infrastructure projects, which includes roads, power and other related contractual works. assessee had claimed deduction u/s section 80IA of Act. AO observed that assessee had purchased used 2 I.T.A. No. 870/Hyd/19 Naoli n Infrastructure Pvt. Ltgd., Hyd. machinery from M/s RR Enterprises, Secunderabad . He observed that as per explanation 2 of section 80IA of Act, where any plant or machinery or any part thereof, which has been previously used for any purpose has transferred to new business and total value of machinery so transferred does not exceed 20% of total value of machinery, only then, can deduction u/s 80IA be allowed. Since value of machinery is more than 20% in case of asse ssee, assessee was asked as to why deduction claimed u/s 80IA should not be disallowed, Assessee s representative had admitted that company had no objection for such disallowance. Taking same into consideration, assessment was completed by making disallowance of assessee s claim of deduction u/s 80IA of Act. 3. Thereafter, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A), which was dismissed by CIT(A) on ground that assessee has not appeared before him inspite of serv ice of notices for hearing on 14/12/2018, 18/02/2019 & 08/03/2019. Further, he also observed that assessee has not filed any evidence to substantiate its claim that disallowance u/s 80IA should not be made. 4. Against order of CIT(A), assess ee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: 1. order of Commissioner of Income -Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law to extent it is prejudicial to assessee. 2. learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming action of assessing officer without giving any further opportunity. 3. learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming action of assessing officer in not allowing deduction amount of Rs 3 I.T.A. No. 870/Hyd/19 Naoli n Infrastructure Pvt. Ltgd., Hyd. 77,92,708/- u/s 80lA of I.T act, without giving any further opportunity. 4. learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that 20% value of machinery has purchased was used machinery from R.R Enterprises without giving any further opportunity. 5. learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in charging interest amount of Rs 16,20,300/- ix] s 234B of I.T act and amount of Rs 1,46,828/ - u/s 234C of I.T act. 6. learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in determining total income at Rs 1,74,11,370 as against income of Rs 96,18,660/ - 7. Any other ground that may be urged at time of hearing. 5 After hearing both parties, we find that assessee has not filed any evidence before AO or CIT(A) to substantiate its claim that value of plant and machinery purchased by it was not its new unit which is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA earlier used by M/s RR Enterprises and also that its value is not more than 20% of total value of plant and machinery. Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that assessee has evidence to prove or substantiate its claim of deduction u/s 80IA and s ought further opportunity to file relevant evidence. Though during course of hearing, we announced that appeal should be remanded to file of CIT(A), after going through facts on record, we find that since assessee has not filed any evidence either before AO or before CIT(A), we deem it fit and proper to remand appeal to file of AO with direction to reconsider issue in accordance with law after examining material/evidence filed by assessee . assessee is directed to furnish all relevant material before 4 I.T.A. No. 870/Hyd/19 Naoli n Infrastructure Pvt. Ltgd., Hyd. AO and cooperate with AO for speedy completion of assessment proceedings. 6. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in open court on 27 th September, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 27 th September, 2019. kv Copy forwarded to 1. Naolin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., C/o. T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate, Flat No. 102, Gowri Apts., Urdu Lane, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad. 2. ACIT, Circle 16(1), Hyderabad. 3. CIT(A) 5, Hyderabad. 4. Pr. CIT 4, Hyderabad 5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6. Guard File Naolin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle16(1), Hyderabad