Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: VAT Audit :: empanelment :: TDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: form 3cd :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: VAT RATES :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: cpt
From the Courts »
 Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
 Shreemati Devi vs. CIT (Allahabad High Court)
 Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 DCIT vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma (ITAT Mumbai)
 ACIT vs. Jawaharlal Agicha (ITAT Mumbai)
 CIT vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co (Bombay High Court)
 Makes further amendments to Notification no. 157/90-Customs dated 28th March, 1990 regarding temporary admission under the ATA Carnet
 Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI - 2/2016-Customs

Mr. Pedditi Ananth Reddy, Moinabad (M), Ranga Reddy Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 8 (2) Hyderabad.
July, 08th 2014


                  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



             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
                         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
                         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/-
Hyderabad, Dated 02nd July, 2014
                      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.
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Custom Software Development Outsourcing Custom Software Development Offshore Cus

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions