9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal as well as the prayer of the Ld. AR, in the interest of justice, We hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) in order to consider the issues involved in the appeals for the A.Y. 2018-19 and A.Y. 2019-20 afresh and decide the matter on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes - ITA Nos. 4 and 5/Hyd/2021 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2021 - A. Mohan Alankamony, Member (A) And S.S. Godara, Member (J) For the Appellant : M.V. Anil Kumar For the Respondents : Venudhar Godesi, DR ORDER Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM These appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad in appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that CIT(A) as well as the CPC ought to have appreciated the fact that the entire amount of ₹ 11,55,523 was paid within the financial year or before the due date of filing the return of income. Hence, the same should be allowed as deduction. 5. Your appellant submits that CIT(A) as well as the CPC erred in not treating the expenditure as allowable U/s. 37(1) of the Act as the payment of employees and employers contribution to PF and ESI was incurred in the course of business and for the purpose of business. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that in case of conflicting judgments by the High Courts, the view favourable to the appellant has to be considered. 7. For these and such other grounds that may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness and for the purpose of business. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that in case of conflicting judgments by the High Courts, the view favourable to the appellant has to be considered. 7. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing your appellant prays that the Hon'ble Members may delete the addition of ₹ 5,97,209/-. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of providing repair and maintenance services for turbines, manufacturing and trading in turbine parts etc., filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 4/10/2018 and for the A.Y. 2019-20 on 01/20/2019 admitting total income of ₹ 1,94,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) did not consider the submissions of the assessee for both the AYs under consideration. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued that though proper opportunities had been provided to the assessee, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee nor its Representative appeared before the Ld. CIT(A) except filing written submissions. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) had no other option but to pass orders based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2018-19 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
