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,             The Income Tax Officer,
Moinabad (M), Ranga Reddy         vs. Ward 8 (2)
Dist., PAN AKMPP-1505-D               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 the
Order of the CIT(A)-III, Hyderabad dated 08.02.2013 for the
A.Y. 2009-2010. Assessee has raised as many as 9 grounds.
The main contention of the assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) failed to
consider the written submissions and other certificates filed
before him and in fact, subsequently rectified the appellate
order by way of corrigendum that written submissions were
submitted and assessee's contention was that in a sense 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 income at
Rs.60,05,680/-. During the course of assessment, A.O. made
an amount of Rs.30,19,000/- as peak amount available in
                                 2
                                           ITA.No.533/Hyd/2013
                         Pedditi Ananth Reddy, Ranga Reddy Dist.,

bank account and an amount of Rs.27,25,700/- as capital
gains on sale of land and a further sum of Rs.20,000/- as
interest income not shown in the return of income. Contesting
various additions made, it seems that A.O. filed written
submissions      and   various       certificates   supporting    his
contentions before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) passed the order
and   there   was no    mention of considering          the   written
submissions or contentions of the assessee. On being pointed
out by the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) vide corrigendum order 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 stated 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 submissions
and documents placed before the Ld. CIT(A) submitted 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 contentions were
never considered or discussed in the order. Further, it was also
pointed that assessee has furnished cash book to explain
various amounts available in the bank account but neither
A.O. nor Ld. CIT(A) considered the cash book. Even though
learned A.R. enclosed the certificate issued with reference to
distance available from the nearest municipal limits to the land
sold, since the same was not placed before the authorities, 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. CIT(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 file of Ld.
CIT(A) as it seems that he not only missed the written
submissions on record but also various contentions of the
assessee made therein. Even though the error was corrected 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 the Ld. CIT(A)
should be set aside and the appeal before him should be
restored so that assessee gets due opportunity in making his
submissions. If required, Ld. CIT(A) may remand the matter to
the A.O. particularly with reference to the contention that
assessee maintained cash book and the land in question is
away from municipal limits and is an agricultural land. 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) for fresh
adjudication. Needless to say, that assessee should be given
due opportunity of hearing to put-forth his contentions.







5.          In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed 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 02nd 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.