C. Radha Krishna Kumar, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

MA 103/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2610 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Capital asset; Search and seizure
• Section: 54F; 2(14); 54; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 103/HYD/2014 IN ITA NO. 295/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 SRI C. RADHAKRISHNA KUMAR, HYDERABAD PAN: ABBPC5019K VS. THE ASST. CIT CIRCLE-16(1) HYDERABAD APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY: SRI S. RAMA RAO RESPONDENT BY: SRI RAJAT MITRA DATE OF HEARING: 28 .1 1 .2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10 .12.2014 O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JM: BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA) THE ASSESSE E SEEKS RECALL OF TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ITA NO. 295/HYD/2 012 DATED 7.3.2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09. 2. THE PETITIONER IN THIS MA HAS POINTED OUT THAT CERT AIN MISTAKES THAT HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL W HILE PASSING THE ORDER IN ITA NO. 295 DATED 7 TH MARCH, 2013 AND POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD FAILED TO CONSIDE R CERTAIN FACTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL PLEADED TH AT THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED IN THE INTE REST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY. 3. THE PETITIONER HEREIN IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INC OME FROM LEGAL PROFESSION. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR REL EVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE PETITIONER SOLD 32.5 GUNTAS OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS S ITUATED IN MA NO. 103/HYD/2014 SRI C. RADHAKRISHNA KUMAR ======================= 2 SURVEY NO. 464, AMEENAPUR VILLAGE, PATANCHERU MANDA L OF MEDAK DISTRICT TO ONE SRI E.V. RAJA REDDY. THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RS. 1 CRORE BUT THE PURCHASER GOT THE PROPERTY REGISTERED ON 24.10.2007 BY ADOPTING THE S ALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 24,37,500. 4. THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES CONDUCTED SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS U/S 132 OF THE I.T. ACT ON 25.10 .2007 AT THE PREMISES OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND FOUND CAS H OF RS. 69 LAKHS AND GOLD JEWELLERY OF RS. 640 GRAMS. THE AUTHORITIES SEIZED THE CASH AVAILABLE OF RS. 69 LAK HS THOUGH THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS A PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS. CONSEQUEN T TO THE SEARCH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 153 A FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME. NO ADDITION WAS MADE FOR ANY OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND NO DISPUTE AROSE FOR A NY OF SUCH YEARS. FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09, THE PETITIONER O FFERED INCOME FROM PROFESSION OF RS. 4,98,593 AND CLAIMED THAT THE GAIN ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WORKED OUT TO A NEGATIVE FIGURE OF RS. 7,63,451. 5. WITH REGARD TO THE CAPITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DID NOT ALLOW THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF T HE I.T. ACT AND ALSO DID NOT CONSIDER THE SUBMISSION THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(14) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE PETITIONER PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT CONSIDER THE PRAYER OF THE PETITIONER HEREI N AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE PETITIONER PRE FERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT AND THE SAID APPEAL WAS MA NO. 103/HYD/2014 SRI C. RADHAKRISHNA KUMAR ======================= 3 NUMBERED AS ITA NO. 295/HYD/2012. THE ITAT POSTED T HE CASE FOR HEARING ON 20.12.2012. ON THE SAID DATE, T HE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PETITIONER SRI SUK UMAR BABU, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WAS OUT OF INDIA AND, THEREFORE, THE PETITIONER HIMSELF APPEARED BEFORE T HE ITAT SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT INCLINED TO GRANT ADJOURNMENT AND, THEREFORE, THE PETITIONER WA S ASKED TO PRESENT HIS CASE. THE PETITIONER DOES NOT POSSESS KNOWLEDGE OF INCOME-TAX AND WAS NOT IN A POSITION T O ARGUE THE MATTER FOR HIMSELF. OWING TO DIFFICULTY I N PRESENTING THE CASE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT HE PLEADED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE CASE BE ADJOURNED SO AS TO ENABLE THE PETITIONER TO GET HIS CASE REPRESENTED. THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST BUT SUGGESTED THAT A WRITTEN SUBMISSION BE FILED. ACCORDINGLY, THE PETITIONER HE REIN SUBMITTED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. THE ITAT VIDE ORDER IN ITA NO. 295/H/2012 DATED 7.3.2013 DECIDED THE APPEAL AND DISMISSED ALL THE GROUNDS. THE TRIBUNAL IN THEIR ORDER AT PARA 16 MEN TIONED THAT 'THE ASSESSEE APPEARED IN PERSON FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL REQUIRED THE ASS ESSEE TO ARGUE THE MATTER'. 8. ON MERITS, THE ITAT HELD THAT THE LAND SOLD IS A CAPITAL ASSET. AT PARA 21 OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, IT IS HELD THAT: 'WITH REGARD TO THE GROUND NO. 1, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM AND OTHERS, IN ITA NO. 1024/HYD/2011 AND OTHERS, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 16/-01/2012, WE HOLD THAT MA NO. 103/HYD/2014 SRI C. RADHAKRISHNA KUMAR ======================= 4 THE LAND IS A CAPITAL ASSET IN THE PRESENT CASE AND ATTRACTS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT, AND HENCE WILL NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION OF PROFIT ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND U/ S 2(14)(III)(B) OF THE ACT, AS IT IS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET' 9. WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F, THE ITAT AT PARAS 19 & 20 HELD THAT: '19. THE CIT(A) HAS POINTED OUT THAT PERMISSION FOR CONSTRUCTION WAS TAKEN IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE ONLY. EVEN THE SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION, NAMELY EXPANSION OF THE HOUSE, THE PERMISSION IS NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE FOR EXPANSION OF THE ALREADY EXISTING HOUSE, HENCE IN OUR OPINION THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT CONSTRUCTION HAS IN FACT BEEN CARRIED OUT BY HIM ON THE LAND, WHICH BELONGING TO HIS WIFE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY HIM AND ESTABLISH THAT THE MOVEMENT OF THE FUNDS FROM THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT OF THE EXPANDED BUILDING . 20. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SHOULD BE EITHER ACQUIRED OR CONSTRUCTED OUT OF THE OWN FUNDS OR SALE PROCEEDS OF THE CAPITAL ASSET, ON WHICH, DEDUCTION U/ S 54F IS CLAIMED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE FUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE'S WIFE HAS SPENT OUT OF HER OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE FUND FLOW STATEMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF PROVIDED THE FUNDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE ON THE LAND BELONGING TO HIS WIFE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE.' 10. THE PETITIONER HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ITAT DID NOT CONSIDER THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AVAILABLE ON RECOR D AND MA NO. 103/HYD/2014 SRI C. RADHAKRISHNA KUMAR ======================= 5 HENCE CERTAIN ERRORS ARE CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT. THEREFORE, THE PETITIONER IS SUBMITTING THE FOLLOWI NG EXPLANATIONS REQUESTING FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER. 11. PASSING OF AN ORDER EX PARTE : IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PETITIONER IS AN ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION BUT HE DEALS WITH CIVIL MATTERS. HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF INCOME-T AX PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE PETITIONER ENTRUSTED TH E MATTER TO THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT BY NAME SRI C. SUKUMAR BABU, HIS OWN BROTHER. THE SAID CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WAS OUT OF COUNTRY AND ASKED THE PETITIO NER TO SEEK AN ADJOURNMENT. THE PETITIONER, WAS THEREFORE, PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS PER THE NOTICE ISSUE D AND WAS PRESENT WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED. THE PETITIONE R'S REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS REJECTED AND THE PETITI ONER WAS ASKED TO ARGUE THE MATTER. AS SUBMITTED EARLIER , THE PETITIONER DOES NOT POSSESS THE KNOWLEDGE OF INCOME -TAX PROCEEDINGS AND, THEREFORE, WAS NOT IN A POSITION T O ARGUE THE MATTER. THE SAME WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ITAT AND IN SPITE OF A SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT IT WAS NOT ACCEDED TO. THE PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MADE AS THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTA TIVE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO ATTEND. THEREFORE, THE PET ITIONER SUBMITS THAT HE IS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT REASON I N NOT PRESENTING THE MATTER WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED. 12. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, WHEN THE PETITIONER SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT, TH E TRIBUNAL MENTIONED THAT WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MAY BE FILED. ACCORDINGLY, THE PETITIONER FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS. THE TRIBUNAL ACKNOWLEDGED THE RECEIPT OF SUCH WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS AT PARA NO. 18 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER BUT THE SAME WERE NOT CONSIDERED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS MA NO. 103/HYD/2014 SRI C. RADHAKRISHNA KUMAR ======================= 6 WERE CLEARLY NARRATED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FI LED AND THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE AN EX PARTE DECISION WAS TAKEN. 13. THE PETITIONER, THEREFORE, SUBMITS THAT IN VIEW OF THE RULE 24 OF INCOME- TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963. THE EX PARTE ORDER MAY KINDLY BE RECALLED AND THE PETITIONER MAY BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY OF ARGUIN G THE MATTER THROUGH HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AFRESH . 14. THE PETITIONER FURTHER SUBMITS THAT ON MERITS THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATIONS MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED. 15. AT PARA NO. 21, THE TRIBUNAL REJECTED THE PLEA OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSET DOES NOT REPRESENT CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(14) OF THE IT ACT BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM AND OTHERS IN ITA NO. 102 4/ HYD/2011 DATED 16.1.2011. IN THIS REGARD THE PETITI ONER SUBMITS THAT THE SAID DECISION HAS NO APPLICATION T O THE FACTS OF THE PETITIONER'S CASE. IN THE CASE OF SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM AND OTHERS, THE LAND WAS WITHIN 8 KM. FROM HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL LIMITS AND IS NOT WITHIN THE NO TIFIED AREA OF THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY. IN THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER, THE LAND IS BEYOND 8 KM. FROM THE HYDERABAD MUNICIP ALITY AND ALSO BEYOND 8 KM FROM THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY I. E. PATANCHERU. 16. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMEENAPUR VILLAGE IS IN TH E RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL OF MEDAK DIST. THE VILLAGE IS BEYOND 8 KM. FROM HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL LIMITS AND TH E. RAMACHANDRAPURAM MUNICIPALITY. IT IS NOT WITHIN THE NOTIFIED AREA. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE CO-OR DINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACT S OF THE MA NO. 103/HYD/2014 SRI C. RADHAKRISHNA KUMAR ======================= 7 PETITIONER'S CASE. WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM FOR DED UCTION U/S 54F IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO INFORMATION THAT THE PETITIONER SPENT THE AMOUNT FROM OUT OF HIS FUNDS. IN THIS REGARD IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL COST OF CONST RUCTION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY AT PLOT NO. 539, ROAD NO. 86, JU BILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD WAS RS. 1,00,36,782. 17. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT PETITIONER'S OWN FU NDS HAVE GONE INTO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING AND , THEREFORE, THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE IT ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT A RESIDENTIAL HOU SE WAS CONSTRUCTED BY THE PETITIONER AT HIS COST ON THE LA ND HELD BY HIS WIFE. IN THE SAID LAND A SMALL BUILDING WAS ALREADY EXISTING AND THE PETITIONER BUILT A FULL-FLEDGED RE SIDENTIAL BUILDING. 18. IN THIS REGARD THE PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT A QUESTI ON AROSE WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE I.T AC T CLAIMED BY HIS WIFE SMT. K. RAJANI KUMARI, THE TRIBUNAL VID E ORDER IN ITA NO. 9897/HYD/ 11 DATED 13.2.2014 OBSERVED AS UNDER: 'ON CONSIDERATION OF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION UNDER S. 54F OF THE ACT. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE DENIED THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION, GOING BY THE SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY AND MAP APPENDED TO SALE DEED THROUGH WHICH THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. A READING OF THE SAID SCHEDULE, WHICH HAS BEEN EXTRACTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THEIR IMPUGNED ORDERS, OPENS WITH 'ALL THAT THE PLOT NO. 539-III ... ' AND DOES NOT CONCLUSIVELY RULE OUT EXISTENCE OF ANY STRUCTURE THEREON. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PROPERTY RECEIPT, PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, CONTAINING MA NO. 103/HYD/2014 SRI C. RADHAKRISHNA KUMAR ======================= 8 DOOR NO. AND EVEN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, EVIDENCES THE EXISTENCE OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, CLINCHES THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BECAUSE IT IS TITLED AS 'PROVISIONAL RECEIPT', ITS EVIDENTIARY VALUE CANNOT BE MITIGATED, BECAUSE IT IS ISSUED BY A STATUTORY AUTHORITY, VIZ. A LOCAL BODY, AND CONTAINS DETAILS LIKE DOOR NO. AND ASSESSEE'S NAME, DATE AND AMOUNT OF TAX COLLECTED, ETC. ALL THESE DETAILS ARE CAPABLE OF BEING VERIFIED FROM THE RECORDS OF THE LOCAL CIVIC BODY, AND AS SUCH, ONE CANNOT CREATE SUCH A EVIDENCE JUST TO MAKE BELIEVE THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PROPERTY RECEIPT IN QUESTION BEING ONE ISSUED BY A STATUTORILY CONSTITUTED CIVIC BODY, IT PREVAILS OVER OTHER STATEMENTS AND EVIDENCES THAT HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE FOR DENYING THE ASSESSEE, ITS CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER S. 54F OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE CLARIFIED OTHER OBSERVATIONS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, SUCH AS, A CONSTRUCTION BEING IN PROGRESS AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, THROUGH HER EXPLANATIONS, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE FALSE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO THE CONTRARY BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE, WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION PURCHASED BY HER WAS NOT MERELY A PLOT OF LAND, BUT WITH SOME RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE THEREON IN A SEMI-FINISHED CONDITION. THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,74,795 FOR THE COMPLETION OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON THE PLOT PURCHASED, WAS DISBELIEVED ON THE GROUND OF THE SMALLNESS OF THE INVESTMENT CLAIMED. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PLOT OF LAND WITH A STRUCTURE EXISTING THEREON IN SEMI-FINISHED CONDITION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AMOUNT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPETING THE STRUCTURE, SO AS TO MAKE IT HABITABLE ONE, IS TOO SMALL. MORE SO, SINCE THE PLOT PURCHASED WAS CLAIMED TO BE CONTAINING TWO HOUSES, ONE CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN 2002 AND THE OTHER BEING FOUND UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN MA NO. 103/HYD/2014 SRI C. RADHAKRISHNA KUMAR ======================= 9 UP BY HER HUSBAND. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), ON THIS ASPECT, AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER S. 54F OF THE ACT, SUBJECT TO FULFILMENT OF OTHER CONDITIONS'. 19. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT I T IS A FACT THAT HE CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITH HIS OWN FUNDS AND HE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF T HE IT. ACT. 20. THE LEARNED DR OBJECTED TO THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APP ARENT ON RECORD. 21. WE FIND THAT THE MATTER COULD NOT BE PRESENTED SATISFACTORILY BEFORE THE ITAT AS THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT IN INDIA AND COULD NOT APPEA R BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING. THE TRI BUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS WIT H REFERENCE TO (I) APPLICATION OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM & ORS. (SUPRA) AND (II) ENTITLEME NT OF PETITIONER TO RELIEF U/S. 54F AS HIS FUNDS HAVE GON E INTO CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. FURTHER, THE ITAT DI D NOT CONSIDER THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THEREFORE, THE PE TITIONER PRAYS THE ITAT TO KINDLY RECALL THE ORDER OF THE IT AT IN ITA NO. 295/HYD/2012 DATED 7 TH MARCH, 2013. 22. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN ERRORS I N THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 7 TH MARCH, 2013 IN ITA NO. 295/HYD/ 2012. WE ARE SATISFIED BY THE REASONS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL. ACCORDINGLY, ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L IN ITA NO. 295/HYD/2012 DATED 7.3.2013 IS HEREBY RECALLED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS RESTORED ON THE FILE OF T HE MA NO. 103/HYD/2014 SRI C. RADHAKRISHNA KUMAR ======================= 10 TRIBUNAL. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO POST HEARING OF THE CASE IN REGULAR COURSE UNDER INTIMATION TO BOTH PAR TIES. 23. IN THE RESULT, MA BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 10 TH DECEMBER, 2014. SD/ - (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2014 TPRAO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SRI C. RADHAKRISHNA KUMAR, FLAT NO. 204, BLOCK-I I, PALLAVI ESTATES, SRINAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD. 3. THE CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT-III, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR 'B' BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD