9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortunity before the CIT(A) to substanstiate it s case and therefore, pleaded for one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A). DR has not raised any objection for the same. We are inclined to direct the Ld.CIT(A) to afford one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for satistical purpose. - SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri V.Govinda Raju, AR For the Respondent :Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR ORDER Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/104929483 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Impugned Order (Order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Ld.First Appellate Authority (i.e. Ld.CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi) in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Appellant is bad and erroneous in law and is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld.First Appellate authority erred in not speaking about the allowability of deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even though the ITR for the A.Y.2018-19 was filed within the due date i.e. prior to 31st October 2018. If deduction u/s 80P is allowed, there is no demand in the instant case. But, surprisingly, without considering the deduction u/s 80P as the Appellant appealed against, the new disallowance was made in the impugned order to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of the Appeal. The Appellant wish to be personally heard before any decision is taken in this matter. The Appellant prayed this Hon ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench to Pass Orders as may be deemed firt and rpoper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. All the grounds of appeal relate to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act. The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the return of income was filed, after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act on 28.10.2018, well before the due date of filing of the return of income, i.e. 31.10.2018. The Ld.AR further contended that the Ld.CIT(A) erred by considering the difference between receipts and payments as profit earned from investment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stments in SB A/c as per audited Receipts Payment A/c and made impugned additon of Rs. 3,27,037/-. The Ld.AR contended that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in making fresh additon of Rs. 3,27,037/- which is not correct and deserve to be deleted. The Ld.AR submitted a copy of audit report for the Finanical Year 2017-18 before the Tribunal and filed statements of receipts and payments, income and expenditure, Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Statement etc. and contended that the assessee was not given oportunity before the Ld.CIT(A) to substanstiate it s case and therefore, pleaded for one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.DR has not raised any objection for the same. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
