V. Suryanarayana Reddy(HUF), Karimnagar, Karimnagar V. ACIT, Karimnagar, Karimnagar

CO 79/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2542 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SITARAMA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Section: 54F; 263; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.89/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 DR. V. SURYANARAYANA REDDY, (HUF), KARIMNAGAR. PAN AABHV4848Q VS. ACIT, KARIMNAGAR CIRCLE KARIMNAGAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CROSS OBJECTION NO.79/HYD/2015 ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.89/HYD/2013- ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 ACIT, KARIMNAGAR CIRCLE KARIMNAGAR. VS. DR. V. SURYANARAYANA REDDY, (HUF), KARIMNAGAR. PAN AABHV4848Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. A.V. RAGHURAM FOR REVENUE : MR. A. SITARAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 27.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.09.2016 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THESE CROSS-APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD AND IT PERTAIN S TO THE A.Y. 2008-2009. THE ONLY GROUND URGED BY THE ASSESSEE REA DS AS UNDER : THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN SUSTAINING ADDITI ON OF 2 ITA.NO.89/HYD/2013 & C.O.NO.79/HYD/2015 DR. V. SURYANARAYANA REDDY (HUF), KARIMNAGAR. RS.63,21,526 ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CAPITAL GAINS EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54F. 2. BY WAY OF CROSS-OBJECTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY CONTENDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN ALLOWIN G DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF INDIVIDUAL AND NOT BY HUF. THERE ARE OTHER TWO CON NECTED GROUNDS WHICH NEED NOT BE ELABORATED HERE FOR THE REA SONS GIVEN BELOW. 3. THE ASSESSEE-HUF DECLARED INCOME OF RS.1,81,110 UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES. DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD A HOU SE PLOT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2008-09 AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT ON THE GR OUND THAT IT HAD INVESTED PURCHASE CONSIDERATION IN ACQUIRIN G A HOUSE AND ITS ADJACENT LAND. THE HOUSE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIR ED IN THE NAME OF THE KARTHA AND HIS WIFE. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OBSERVED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE ON PLOT PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE OF THE KARTHA IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION AND AC CORDINGLY COMPUTED THE ALLOWABLE EXEMPTION. AN APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMING EXEMPTION ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF IN VESTMENT WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT(A) AND THUS THE ASSESSEE PREF ERRED FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. IT DESERVES TO BE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED EXEMPTION ON THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE KARTHA OF THE HUF PRESUMABLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROPERTY PURCHASE D IS TREATED AS HUF PROPERTY AND THIS ASPECT WAS NOT QUESTION ED BY 3 ITA.NO.89/HYD/2013 & C.O.NO.79/HYD/2015 DR. V. SURYANARAYANA REDDY (HUF), KARIMNAGAR. THE REVENUE UNDER THE SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSIONER, UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, OR BY COR RECTING THE ERROR, IF ANY, UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVING BEEN PASSED ON 31.12.2010 - EITHER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT OR UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT - THE SAID ISSUE HAD ATTAINED FINALITY. EVEN IN T HE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT INVOKED HIS POWER S OF ENHANCEMENT AND MERELY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE WITH REGARD TO THE VALUE OF THE LAND PURCHASED IN THE NAME O F KARTHAS WIFE. THUS, FROM ANY ANGLE, THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILIT Y OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION, VIS--VIS THE PURCHASE MADE BY DR. V. SURY ANARAYANA REDDY, HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. 5. BE THAT AS IT MAY, AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE, A PETITION WAS FILED SEEKING PERMISSION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ITS APPEAL AND THE REVENUE COULD NOT HAV E RAISED ANY OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD AND IN FACT, THERE BEING N O OPPOSITION ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE THE ASSESSEE IS PERMITTED TO WI THDRAW ITS APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. SINCE THE CROSS-OBJECTION FILE D BY THE REVENUE DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), THE CROSS-OBJECTION HAS NO LEGS TO STAND. 6. EVEN OTHERWISE, AN ISSUE WHICH HAS ATTAINED FINALI TY CANNOT BE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE GARB OF FILING CROSS- OBJECTION, THAT TOO FOR EXTENDING THE TIME OF LIMITATION PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKES, IF ANY, COMMITTED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FACT, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR US TO GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE PROPERTY PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF DR. V. SURYANARAYANA REDDY IS THE ASSET OF H UF OR 4 ITA.NO.89/HYD/2013 & C.O.NO.79/HYD/2015 DR. V. SURYANARAYANA REDDY (HUF), KARIMNAGAR. INDIVIDUAL SINCE SUCH ISSUE CANNOT BE URGED BY WAY OF CROSS- OBJECTION. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS PRONOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT, THE CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. 7. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMIS SED ON ACCOUNT OF PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE APART FROM THE FACT THAT APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 49 DAYS. 8. AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMI SSED. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (D.MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD, DATED 27 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 VBP/- COPY TO: 1. DR. V. SURYANARAYANA REDDY (HUF), H.NO.3-04-47, CIVIL HOSPITAL ROAD, KARIMNAGAR. 2. ACIT, KARIMNAGAR CIRCLE, KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT. 3. CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD. 4. CIT-II, HYDERABAD. 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT, A BENCH, HYDERAB AD 6. GUARD FILE.