Olive Hospitals Private Limited , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1611/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [NaN] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2090 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T. SUNIL GOUTAM
• Assessee Lawyers: D V ANJANEYULU
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member AND Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These assessee’s twin appeals for A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2014-15 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Hyderabad’s separate orders; dated 08.06.2018 and 11.06.2018 passed in case Nos. 0130 and 0506/2016-17/ITO, Ward- 16(1)/CIT(A)-4/Hyd/18-19 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the of Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’] respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. ITA Nos.1610 & 1611/Hyd/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 Olive Hospitals Private Limited, Hyderabad. PAN : AABCOO749G. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 16(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri DV Anjaneyulu. Revenue by : Sri T. Sunil Goutam. Date of hearing: 01.02.2022 Date of pronouncement: 03.02.2022 ITA Nos.1610 & 1611/Hyd/2018 2 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grounds pleaded in both the instant appeals challenge correctness of the learned lower authorities’ action disallowing section 35AD deduction of Rs.31,48,627/- and Rs.79,48,177/-; assessment year wise, respectively. 3. We note at the outset that the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion has nowhere dealt with the factual matrix of the issues or has he framed the corresponding points for determination as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act as follows : “4.3 I have carefully considered the acts of the case, the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. The appellant submissions are not accepted due to the reasons mentioned in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer. I am in agreement with the Assessing Officer, hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is hereby confirmed.” 4. Learned departmental representative could hardly rebut the fact that the CIT(A) has not even adverted to the assessee’s factual as well as legal arguments in preceding alleged lower appellate discussion. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s identical substantive grounds pleaded herein back to the CIT(A) for his afresh adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly. No other ground has been pressed before us. ITA Nos.1610 & 1611/Hyd/2018 3 5. These assessee’s twin appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 3 rd February, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 3 rd February, 2022. TYNM/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Olive Hospitals Private Limited, Hyderabad. M/s. Anjaneyulu & Co., Chartered Accountants, 30, Bhagyalakshmi Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 080. 2 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 16(1), Hyderabad. 3 CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad. 4 Pr. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad. 5 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 6 Guard File By Order