SAKET ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

The assessee has raised common ground for both the assessment years, therefore, for the sake of brevity, the only ground raised in for A.Y. 2021-22 read as under :

The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a private company engaged in the business of Construction. Assessee company has filed its original return of income for A.Y. 2021-22 on 14.03.2022 admitting total income of Rs.1,72,52,830/- and thereafter, filed revised return of income on the same day, declaring total income of Rs.1,72,52,830/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,10,34,190/- raising a demand for Rs.7,44,670/- interalia making disallowance of Rs.2,45,454/- u/s 23 of the Act, Rs.31,20,557/- u/s 41 of the Act and Rs.4,15,348/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Accordingly, the 3 Saket Engineers Private Limited, Hyderabad.

Aggrieved with such intimation order, assessee filed an appeal before the LD.CIT(A), who granted partial relief to the assessee. With respect to the ground raised by the assessee before the Tribunal i.e., disallowance of Rs.4,15,348/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, LD.CIT(A) has held as under :

Aggrieved with the order of LD.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us.

At the outset, the ld.AR sought time as the learned counsel for the assessee is not available.

Per contra, ld.DR has pointed out that the issue in the present case is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016. She has drawn our attention to the orders passed by the LD.CIT(A) wherein the LD.CIT(A) has extensively relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reproduced hereinabove. She further submitted that the order of LD.CIT(A) is in accordance with law.

During the hearing, the Bench Clerck had pointed out that in these two appeals the assessee has not deposited the appeal fee and thus, the appeals are also required to be dismissed being defective.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the present case, intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed on 24.08.2022 by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru. On appeal, the LD.CIT(A) has granted part relief to the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of LD.CIT(A), assessee is now before us without depositing the required appeal

We notice that the LD.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the ground that the issue is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), wherein the LD.CIT(A) has extensively mentioned in the paragraph 6.3.3 reproduced hereinabove. In light of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the assessee and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

The facts of the present case and issue involved is identical to the facts and issue which we had considered for A.Y. 2021-22. The reasons given by us in preceding paragraph nos.9 and 10 shall mutatis and mutandis apply to this appeal, as well. Therefore, for 6 Saket Engineers Private Limited, Hyderabad. similar reasons, we dismiss the appeal of assessee for A.Y. 2018- 19.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.

To sum up, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.