Pedditi Ananth Reddy, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward 8(2), Hyderabad

ITA 533/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 53322514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.533/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 MR. PEDDITI ANANTH REDDY, MOINABAD (M), RANGA REDDY DIST., PAN AKMPP-1505-D VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8 (2) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE MR. S. RAMA RAO FOR REVENUE MR. SOLGY JOSE T. KOTTARAM DATE OF HEARING 02.07.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02.07.2014 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD DATED 08.02.2013 FOR THE A.Y. 2009-2010. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 9 GR OUNDS. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND OTHER CERTIFIC ATES FILED BEFORE HIM AND IN FACT, SUBSEQUENTLY RECTIFIED THE APPELLATE ORDER BY WAY OF CORRIGENDUM THAT WRITTEN SUBMISSION S WERE SUBMITTED AND ASSESSEES CONTENTION WAS THAT IN A S ENSE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THEM ALTOGETHER. 2. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,95,080/-. A.O . COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCO ME AT RS.60,05,680/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, A. O. MADE AN AMOUNT OF RS.30,19,000/- AS PEAK AMOUNT AVAILABL E IN 2 ITA.NO.533/HYD/2013 PEDDITI ANANTH REDDY, RANGA REDDY DIST., BANK ACCOUNT AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.27,25,700/- AS CAP ITAL GAINS ON SALE OF LAND AND A FURTHER SUM OF RS.20,00 0/- AS INTEREST INCOME NOT SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. CONTESTING VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE, IT SEEMS THAT A.O. FILED WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND VARIOUS CERTIFICATES SUPPORTING HIS CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) PASSE D THE ORDER AND THERE WAS NO MENTION OF CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OR CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON BEIN G POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, LD. CIT(A) VIDE CORRIGENDUM OR DER DATED 25.03.2013 MODIFIED THE SENTENCE IN PAGE 5, PARA 5. 1 THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT GIVE ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BUT TO BE READ AS THE APPELLANT GAVE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND STAT ED THAT. ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) NOT ONLY DID NOT CONSIDER THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BUT DID NOT ACCEPT ANY OF THE CONTENTIONS NOR ADJUDICATED THEM. 3. LD. COUNSEL POINTING OUT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION S AND DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTE D THAT LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AT ALL IN THE ORDER PASSED AND SO ASSESSEE IS BASICALLY AGGRIEVED ON THAT. EVEN THOUGH, LD. CIT(A) CORRECTED THE SENTENCE THAT WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED BUT IN A SENSE THE CONTENTIO NS WERE NEVER CONSIDERED OR DISCUSSED IN THE ORDER. FURTHER , IT WAS ALSO POINTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED CASH BOOK TO EX PLAIN VARIOUS AMOUNTS AVAILABLE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BUT N EITHER A.O. NOR LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE CASH BOOK. EVEN THOUGH LEARNED A.R. ENCLOSED THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED WITH R EFERENCE TO DISTANCE AVAILABLE FROM THE NEAREST MUNICIPAL LIMIT S TO THE LAND SOLD, SINCE THE SAME WAS NOT PLACED BEFORE THE AUTH ORITIES, THE SAME COULD NOT BE ADMITTED BY US. IT WAS THE PRAYER THAT THE 3 ITA.NO.533/HYD/2013 PEDDITI ANANTH REDDY, RANGA REDDY DIST., MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CI T(A) TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL IN ITS CORRECT PERSPECTIVE. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE F ILE OF LD. CIT(A) AS IT SEEMS THAT HE NOT ONLY MISSED THE WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS ON RECORD BUT ALSO VARIOUS CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE MADE THEREIN. EVEN THOUGH THE ERROR WAS CO RRECTED BY WAY OF CORRIGENDUM, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AT ALL. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM SHOUL D BE RESTORED SO THAT ASSESSEE GETS DUE OPPORTUNITY IN M AKING HIS SUBMISSIONS. IF REQUIRED, LD. CIT(A) MAY REMAND THE MATTER TO THE A.O. PARTICULARLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONTENT ION THAT ASSESSEE MAINTAINED CASH BOOK AND THE LAND IN QUEST ION IS AWAY FROM MUNICIPAL LIMITS AND IS AN AGRICULTURAL L AND. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND APPEAL IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FO R FRESH ADJUDICATION. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO PUT-FORTH HIS CONTENT IONS. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02.07.2014 SD/- SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 02 ND JULY, 2014 VBP/- 4 ITA.NO.533/HYD/2013 PEDDITI ANANTH REDDY, RANGA REDDY DIST., COPY TO 1. PEDDITI ANANTH REDDY, 3-40, PEDDA MANGALARAM, MOINABAD MANDAL, RANGA REDDY DIST. 501 504 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(2), HYDERABAD 3. CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD 4. CIT-II, HYDERABAD 7. D.R. B BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD.