ITA NO 1489 OF 2016 MANISH KUMAR HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B (SMC) BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1489/HYD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) SHRI MANISH KUMAR HYDERABAD PAN: AFQPP 6185 F VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI K.C. DEVDAS FOR REVENUE : SHRI L. RAMJI RAO, DR O R D E R THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2010-11. IN T HIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF T HE CIT (A)-2, HYDERABAD, DATED 30.06.2016. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISE D THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-2, HYDERABAD (CIT(A)-2 FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR.M.V.PURUSHOTHAMA RAO, A SENIOR CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT APPEARED ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS AS AND WHEN THE APPEALS WERE POSTED FOR HEARING AND THEREFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WERE NO COMPLIANCES ON THE DATES OF HEARING FIXED FOR THE APPEALS. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000 UNDER 'UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN BANK'. DATE OF HEARING : 24.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.08.2017 ITA NO 1489 OF 2016 MANISH KUMAR HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 3 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS A CO-OWNER WITH 10% SHARE IN MULGIE (SHOP) BEARING NO.5-8-582 AND 5-8-582/1, ABID ROAD, HYDERABAD AND THE APPELLANT'S 1/10TH SHARE WAS RS.5,880 AS COMPUTED UNDER THE HEARD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' AND THEREFORE ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,17,600. 2. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO HAVE BEEN CHALLEN GED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND THOUGH A SR. COUNSE L BY NAME SHRI M.V. PURUSHOTHAM RAO APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A), THE CIT (A) HAS DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES A PPEAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FAILED T O FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE SR. COU NSEL IN SUPPORT OF THESE CONTENTIONS TO STATE THAT HE WAS NOT GIVEN OP PORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE. 3. THE LEARNED DR HOWEVER, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE AVERMENTS OF TH E SR. COUNSEL WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT HE APP EARED BUT THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FROM TIME TO TIME DUE TO ONE OR THE OTHER GROUNDS, I DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO RECALL THE ORD ER OF THE CIT (A) AND REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RECON SIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AFTER VERIFYING THE ASSESSE ES CONTENTIONS THAT THE DEPOSIT OF RS.1.00 LAKH IS OUT OF THE WITH DRAWAL MADE EARLIER AND ALSO THAT THE RENTAL INCOME BROUGHT TO TAX SHOULD BE ITA NO 1489 OF 2016 MANISH KUMAR HYDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 3 RESTRICTED TO 1/4 TH OF THE SUM AS THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY 1/4 TH OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. NEEDLE SS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST AUGUST, 2017. SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 31 ST AUGUST, 2017. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 M.V. PURUSHOTHAMA RAO, CA, 609 6 TH FLOOR, LINGAPUR HOUSE, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500029 2 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8(1), H YDERABAD 3 CIT (A)-2 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 2 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER