IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 639 /HYD/20 19 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 15 - 16 KRISHNAMACHARY BANDLA, HYDERABAD. PAN: AMIPB 9100 A VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI P. MURALI MOHAN RAO REVENUE BY: SRI R.S. ARVIND DAKSHAN, DR DATE OF HEARING: 24/07/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26 /07/2019 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 1, HYDERABAD DATED 25/01/2019 IN APPEAL NO.0220/2017 - 18/ITO, WARD - 12(1)/CIT(A) - 1/HYD/2018 - 19 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16. 2. THE ASSESSE E HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE A.O. HAS ALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,48,360/ - BEING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S. 80C OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID, TUITION FE ES PAID CAN BE CLAIMED AS 2 DEDUCTION U/S. 80C OF THE ACT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING RS. 1,50,000/ - IN AN ASSESSMENT YEAR. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE PAYMENT OF LIC PREMIUM AND TUITION FEES AS EVIDENCES TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80C. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. U/S. 68 OF THE ACT FOR A SUM OF RS. 6 LAKHS WITHOUT PROPERLY CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE THAT THE ABOVE DEPOSIT IS MADE OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF FLAT AT SAROORNAGAR SOLD DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2015 - 16. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE WELL APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY THE SAME FOR THE BANK DEPOSITS BY STATING THAT HE HAS SOLD HIS FLAT AT SAROORNAGAR VIDE SALE DEED NO. 3668/2014 FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 6 LAKHS AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDS HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE A PPELLANT HAS RECEIVED GOLD LOAN FROM AXIS BANK FOR THE PURCHASE OF FLAT IN SAROORNAGAR WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYER OF THE ASSESSEE (M/S. MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED) A LSO HAS DE3POSITED CERTAIN AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE TO INCUR EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EVIDENCES TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR THE DEPOSITS MADE INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNTS AND THAT THEREFORE, THE DEPOSITS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED U/S. 68. 10. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. FOR RS. 2,702/ - BEING INTEREST ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE DED UCTION U/S. 80TTA OF THE ACT. 11. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE INTEREST AMOUNT OF RS. 2,702/ - EARNED ON SAVINGS ACCOUNT CAN BE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S. 80TTA OF THE ACT. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THA T THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON MERITS THE ASSESSEE HAS A FAIR CHANCE TO SUCCEED IN HIS APPEAL. THEREAFTER THE LD.AR PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY B E REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. 3 CIT (A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION THEREBY AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED BY STATING THAT THE ON THE DATE OF HEARING NEITH ER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE LD. AR APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IN ORDER TO PURSUE THE CASE AN D THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) DISPOSED OF THE CASE AS HE WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO . THE LD. DR THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) I FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS POSTED THE CASE FOR HEARING HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THEREFORE THE LD. CIT (A) HAD LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDER ON MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I DO NOT FIND ANY FAULT ON THE PART OF THE LD. CIT (A). HOWEVER, SINCE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER AND HAD SIMP LY ENDORSED THE VIEW OF THE LD.AO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH MERITS AND LAW AFTER AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME TIME, I ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS REPRESENTATIVE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD.CIT(A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS 4 APPROPRIATE ORDER BASED ON LAW AND MERITS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH JULY, 2019. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 26 TH JULY , 2019 OKK COPY TO: - 1) KRISHNAMACHARY BANDLA, C/O. P. MURALI & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6 - 3 - 655/2/3, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD - 500082. 2) ITO, WARD - 12(1), 1 ST FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 1 , HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 1 , HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE