IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1508/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 CHANDRA PRAKASH REDDY VELMA HYDERABAD [PAN: AASPV7653E] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI K.A.SAI PRASAD, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY, DR DATE OF HEARING : 22-03-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03-05-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY.2011-12 ARISES FROM TH E CIT(A)-6, HYDERABADS ORDER DATED 07-06-2019 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.10620/2018-19/A3/CIT(A)-6, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHORT, THE ACT]. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS CANVASSED THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIV E GROUNDS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL: ITA NO.1508/HYD/2019 :- 2 -: 1.THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW OR ON FACTS AND IN BOTH. 2.THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUST IFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION OF RS.1,02,64,008/- C LAIMED U/S.54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3.THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FAILED TO A PPRECIATE THE FACTS THAT ALL INGREDIENTS/CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR CLAIM ING EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WERE FULFILLED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S.54 IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 4. THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE LEGAL DISPUTES AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE CO NSTRUCTIONS COULD NOT BE COMPLETED. 5.THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE IN A NUTSHELL IS THAT BOT H THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN DISALLOWING HIS SECTION 54 DEDUCTION CLAIM OF HAVING RE- INVESTED THE CAPITAL GAINS IN ISSUE IN HOUSE PROPERT Y. WE NOTICE IN THIS FACTUAL BACKDROP THAT THE CIT(A)S LOWER A PPELLATE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED EX-PARTE. 4. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF NOR ANY AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAD PUT IN APPEARANCE BEFORE THE CIT(A). AND THIS FORMS THE PRECISE REASONS FOR HIM TO AFFIRM. 5. FACED WITH THIS TECHNICAL ISSUE AND MORE SO WHEN THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE HAD APPEARED; ALTHOUGH WITHOU T POWER OF ATTORNEY FROM THE LOWER APPELLATE DISCUSSION IN PARA 4.3 PG.4, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE THAT LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IN CASE THE ASSESSEES IMPUGNED SECTION 5 4 DEDUCTION ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR HIS AFRESH ITA NO.1508/HYD/2019 :- 3 -: APPROPRIATE ADJUDICATION. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON OR BEFORE 30-09-2021 WITH ALL THE DETAILED EVIDENCE(S) INDICATING THE COMPELLING CIRCUM STANCES OF NON-COMPLETION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AS PER LAW; AT HIS OWN RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY, WITHIN THREE EFFECTIVE OPPOR TUNITIES OF HEARING. 6. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD MAY, 2021 SD/- SD/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.G ODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER HYDERABAD, DATED: 03-05-2021 TNMM ITA NO.1508/HYD/2019 :- 4 -: COPY TO : 1.CHANDRA PRAKASH REDDY VELMA, C/O.KATRAPATI & ASSOCIATES, 1-1-298/2/B/3, 1 ST FLOOR, ASHOK NAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), HYDERABAD. 3.CIT(APPEALS)-6, HYDERABAD. 4.PR.CIT-6, HYDERABAD. 5.D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6.GUARD FILE.