INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUDHIANA vs. MKB HEALTH MATTERS (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED, LUDHIANA

Grounds of appeal are as under: -

14-Chd-2025 MKB Health Matters (OPC) Pvt. Ltd, Ludhiana 2 1. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee and setting aside the matter to the file of AO, without going into and discussing the merits of the case that Assessing Officer had given 8 to 9 times opportunities to file the reply to the assessee 2) That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee and setting aside the matter to the file of AO, for adjudication without taking into consideration whether there were justifiable grounds for making total non- compliance by the assessee before the CIT(A) as well as AO, 3) That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee, and setting aside the assessment order back to the file of the A.O after merely provoking the newly inserted provision 251(1)(a) to section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4) That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the addition of Rs. 2.78,475/- made towards commission payments as the assessee was not given any reply with respect to payment of Rs.27,84,756/-made towards commission. 5) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the addition of Rs. 1,06,941/- (10% of the amount of Rs. 10,69,407/-) made by the AO on account of variation in respect of issue of Travelling Expenses as the assessee did not 14-Chd-2025 MKB Health Matters (OPC) Pvt. Ltd, Ludhiana 3 file any documentary evidences in favour of his claim. 6) That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the addition of Rs 83,20,000/- made by the AO being unexplained investment in Time deposit u/s 69A r.ws 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assessee had failed to furnish any explanation on this issue during the course of assessment proceedings. 7) That, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Vs. Ashokji Chanduji Thakor dated 27.06.2018 wherein the order passed by the Hon'ble ITAT was quashed & order of AO/CIT(A) were restored 8) That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before it is finally disposed of.

Although the Revenue has taken eight grounds of appeal in this case but the main issue involved is the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing the appeal of the Assessee and setting aside the assessment order back to the file of the Assessing Officer after invoking the newly inserted proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

14-Chd-2025 MKB Health Matters (OPC) Pvt. Ltd, Ludhiana 4 4. During proceedings before us, the ld. DR submitted that instead of deciding the appeal on merit, the CIT(A) has remanded it back to the file of the AO.

We have seen the order of the Ld. CIT(A) which was passed by him on 14.11.2024. We find that there is an amendment to section 251 of the Act in the year 2024 w.e.f 1.10.2024 which says as under:

We find that the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144, therefore, the appellate order passed on 14.11.2024 is very much covered under the new sub section inserted in section 251 w.e.f 1.10.2024. Accordingly, we find that the action of the Ld. CIT(A) is very

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.