ITA NO 93 OF 2015 MOHAN GOUD CHIRAG HYDERABAD. PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.93/HYD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) SHRI MOHAN GOUD CHIRAG HYDERABAD PAN: ACEPC 2888 N VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(2) RANGE-8 HYDERABAD FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAMA RAO FOR REVENUE : SHRI K.J. RAO, DR O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2010-11. IN TH IS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUN DS OF APPEAL: 1) THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,31, 14,289/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATING THE DEPOSITS MADE IN STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD, MOINABAD AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 3) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.28,48,368 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATING THE DEPOSITS MADE IN ANDHRA BANK, PEDDAMANGALRAM AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 4) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 80C OF THE I.T.ACT. DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.11.2016 ITA NO 93 OF 2015 MOHAN GOUD CHIRAG HYDERABAD. PAGE 2 OF 3 5) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AND FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CHARGING INTERES T U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE INTACT. 7) ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 TO 4 ARE AGAINST THE ADD ITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) WHILE GROUND NO.5 IS AGAIN ST THE NON- CONSIDERATION OF ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS. 3. IN SUPPORT OF GROUND NO.5, THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED DETA ILED SUBMISSIONS IN WRITING BEFORE THE CIT (A) (WHICH AR E PLACED AT PAGES 67 TO 71 OF THE PAPER BOOK) EXPLAINING THE SO URCES OF THE DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS AND ALSO AS TO WHY TH E DISALLOWANCE U/S 80C OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS NOT REFERRED TO OR DEALT WITH ANY OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT HAS SUMMARILY REJECTED THE SAME BY UPHOLDING TH E ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE OR DER OF THE CIT (A) CANNOT BE UPHELD. 4. THE LEARNED DR, HOWEVER, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO 93 OF 2015 MOHAN GOUD CHIRAG HYDERABAD. PAGE 3 OF 3 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS FA ILED TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER AS TO WHY THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMAND ALL THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) WI TH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A F AIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 25 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 SRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FLAT NO.102 SHRIYAS ELE GANCE, 3-6- 643, STREET NO.9 HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500029 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(2) RANGE-8 HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A)-2 HYDERABAD 4 CIT 2 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER