OLIVE HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD

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.

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.”

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.

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.