Bhavya Anant Udeshi, Hyderabad V. ITO (International Taxation)-I, Hyderabad

MA 118/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2505 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY GANDHI
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Rectification of order
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 118/HYD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 1200/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) SMT. BHAVYA ANANT UDESHI, APPLICANT HYDERABAD. PAN AALPU 3857A VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)- I, RESPONDENT HYDERABAD. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY GANDHI REVENUE BY : SHRI R. MOHAN REDDY DATE OF HEARING : 05/09/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/10/2014 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY AS SESSEE SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE SUPPOSED TO HAVE CREPT INTO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2100/HYD/2011 DATED 04/0 42014. 2. THE FIRST MISTAKE, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, WH ICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED IS WITH REGARD TO APPLICABI LITY OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. IN THIS RESPECT ASSESSEES CONTENTION I S TWOFOLD. SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IS, AS ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALU ATION OF THE PROPERTY FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES BEFORE THE COLLECT OR AND DISTRICT MA NO. 118/HYD/14 SMT. BHAVYA ANANT UDESHI 2 REGISTRAR, IT IS COMING WITHIN THE EXCEPTION PROVID ED UNDER SECTION 50C(2)(B), HENCE, OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF SECTION 50C. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE THAT THOUGH THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE, HOWEVER, WHI LE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER IN THE MATTER. THE FURTHER SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE ON APPL ICABILITY OF SECTION 50C IS, AS THE PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED BY ASSESSEE PRIOR TO COMING INTO EXISTENCE OF SECTION 50C IN THE STATUTE , THE SAID PROVISION IS NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE OF ASSESSEE. FURTHER, TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM THAT PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED IN 1994 I.E. PR IOR TO INSERTION OF SECTION 50C TO THE STATUTE, ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. NEERAJA RED DY ON 20 TH APRIL, 1994, AS PER WHICH, ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION TO SMT. NEERAJA REDDY AND HANDED OVER POSS ESSION. IN THIS CONTEXT, HE HAS REFERRED TO A LETTER OF ASSESSEE SU BMITTED BEFORE THE JUBILEE HILLS COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY ON 22/11/97. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE COMING TO ITS CONCLUSION HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THIS EVIDENCE. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY GIVEN BY A SSESSEE TO G. YESHWANT REDDY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TRANSFER LET TER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SOCIETY ON 22/11/97 WILL MAKE IT CLEAR T HAT IT WAS GIVEN AS PART OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL THE PLOT. HE SUBMITTE D THAT SMT. NEERAJA REDDY HAS FILED A WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF AP, WHICH WAS DECIDED IN HER FAVOUR. THIS EVIDENCE SHOW S THAT SHE WAS THE BUYER DESIROUS OF TRANSFER GETTING EFFECTUATED, WHICH SHE HAD SOUGHT FOR WHILE APPLYING TRANSFER OF PLOT IN HER N AME IN LETTER DATED 12/0-3/2001. THE LEARNED AR REFERRING TO THE SALE D EED DATED 23/10/07 BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND SHRI G. SRINIVASA RED DY SUBMITTED THAT NOT ONLY IT PROVES THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1 LAKH WAS PAID TO ASSESSEE BY SMT. NEERAJA REDDY, BUT, ALSO D ELIVERY OF POSSESSION OF THE PLOT IN 1994. HE SUBMITTED THAT T HE ITO ALSO MADE ENQUIRIES WITH THE PURCHASER SHRI G. SRINIVASA REDD Y, WHO CONFIRMED THE FACT THAT HE PURCHASED THE PLOT FROM SMT. NEERA JA REDDY FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1 LAKH. THUS, IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT ALL THESE MA NO. 118/HYD/14 SMT. BHAVYA ANANT UDESHI 3 EVIDENCES CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT THERE WAS PREEXI STING AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH ASSESSEE HAD AGREED TO TRANSFER THE PRO PERTY TO SMT. NEERAJA REDDY IN 1994. HE SUBMITTED THAT REGARDLESS OF TRANSFER GETTING EFFECTED IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(47) EXISTENC E OF AN AGREEMENT TO TRANSFER THE PLOT PRIOR TO 2003 MAKES SECTION 50 C INAPPLICABLE. IT WAS SUBMITTED, THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISS UE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 50C IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID EVIDENCES. ANOTHER MISTAKE AS POINTED OUT IN THE MI SCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS, WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL, THE ITAT HAS FAILED TO DECIDE GROUND NOS. 8 & 9. THE LEARNED AR THEREFORE CONTENDED FOR RECALLING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY REFU TING THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAVING PASSED THE ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND ALL THE FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD, IT CANNOT BE SAID TH AT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR NON-CONSIDERATION OF ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS OR EVIDENCES FILED BY ASSESSEE. THE LEA RNED DR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE GUISE OF M.A., ASSESSEE IS SE EKING A REVIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 254(2). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. AS FAR AS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C IS NOT APPLICABLE SI NCE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION MADE BY THE REG ISTERING AUTHORITY BY PREFERRING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COLLECTOR AND DI STRICT REGISTRAR, WE FIND THE SAME TO BE DEVOID OF MERIT. A PLAIN READIN G OF SECTION 50C AS A WHOLE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT FILING OF AN APPEAL AGA INST VALUATION MADE BY THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR STAMP DUT Y PURPOSES ONLY MAKES THE PROVISION CONTAINED U/S 50C(2) INAPPLICAB LE. HOWEVER, SO FAR AS THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 50C(1) IS CONCE RNED, FILING OF SUCH APPEAL HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT. IN VIEW OF THE AFO RESAID, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED AR. SO FAR AS THE NON- MA NO. 118/HYD/14 SMT. BHAVYA ANANT UDESHI 4 APPRECIATION/NON-CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCES FILED B Y ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, AS CAN BE SEEN, THE PRIMARY SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE SOCIETY ON 22/11/97 CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THE TRANSFER OF PROPER TY BY ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF SMT. NEERAJA REDDY ON 20/04/94 BUT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, ON A PERUSAL O F THE SAID LETTER, A COPY OF WHICH IS AT PAGE 24 OF PAPER BOOK WOULD MAK E IT CLEAR THAT THOUGH THE LETTER IS DATED 20/04/94, BUT, IT WAS SU BMITTED BEFORE THE JUBILEE HILLS COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY ON 22/11/97 AS PER THE ENDORSEMENT MADE THEREIN. BE THAT AS IT MAY, TH E FILING OF THE SAID LETTER DOES NOT IPSO-FACTO RESULT IN A TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF SMT. NEERAJA REDDY IN ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH SHOWS CONVEYANCE OF THE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF SMT. NEERAJA REDDY. SO FAR AS ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH LETTER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUBILEE HILLS COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY ON 22/11/9 7 PROVES THAT THERE IS AN AGREEMENT TO SALE THE PLOT, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE CONSIDERING ASSESSEES APPEAL HAS EX HAUSTIVELY DEALT WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AND HAS HELD THAT NOWHERE IT SPEAKS OF TRANSFER OF PLOT IN THE NAME OF SMT. NEERAJA REDDY. 5. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT THE HONBL E HIGH COURT OF AP WHILE DECIDING WRIT PETITION FILED BY SMT. NEERA JA REDDY PROVES THAT SHE WAS A BUYER OF THE PROPERTY DESIROUS OF GE TTING IT TRANSFERRED IN HER NAME. HOWEVER, FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD, IT APPEARS THAT THE HIGH COURT IN THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION IN W.P NO. 24202 OF 1998, THOUGH, DIRECTED THE JUBILEE HILLS COOPERATIV E HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH BYE-LAW OF THE SOCIETY FOR ADMISSION AS MEMBER AND TRANSFER OF INTEREST OF OTHER EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS, IT DOES NO T SPECIFICALLY REFERS EITHER TO ASSESSEE OR TO THE PROPERTY OF ASSESSEE. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS ISSUED THE WRIT TO THE S OCIETY TO CONSIDER THE TRANSFER LETTER AND APPLICATIONS FILED BY SMT. NEERAJA REDDY, THERE MA NO. 118/HYD/14 SMT. BHAVYA ANANT UDESHI 5 IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WHI CH COULD ESTABLISH THAT SMT. NEERAJA REDDY WAS EITHER ACCEPT ED AS A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY OR THE PLOT BELONGING TO ASSESSEE WA S TRANSFERRED TO HER NAME, EVEN AFTER THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE HONBL E AP HIGH COURT ON 19/07/2000. ON THE CONTRARY, THE JUBILEE HILLS C OOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY EXECUTED THE REGISTERED SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON 15/12/06 IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROPERT Y. 6. FURTHER, IT IS THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT THE SA LE DEED EXECUTED BETWEEN ASSESESEE AND THE ULTIMATE BUYER SHRI G. SR INIVASA REDDY CLEARLY STATES THAT SMT. NEERAJA REDDY HAD PAID SAL E CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1 LAKH TO ASSESSEE AND TOOK POSSESSION OF THE P LOT IN 1994. THOUGH, IT MAY BE A FACT THAT THERE ARE RECITALS IN THE SALE DEED DATED 23/10/07 BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND THE ULTIMATE BUYER OF PROPERTY SHRI G. SRINIVASA REDDY TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1 LAKH FROM SMT. NEERAJA REDD Y AND HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY IN 1994. HOWEV ER, CLAUSE (5), (6), (7) & (8) OF THE SAID SALE DEED MAKES IT ABUND ANTLY CLEAR THAT ON THE DATE OF SALE, ASSESSEE STILL RETAINED HER OWNER SHIP AS WELL AS OTHER ANCILLARY AND INCIDENTAL RIGHTS OVER THE PRO PERTY. THE SAID RECITALS IN AGREEMENT NOT ONLY HAS NO REFERENCE TO SMT. NEERAJA REDDY BUT ALSO MAKES IT CLEAR THAT IT IS THE ASSESS EE WHO IS RESPONSIBLE IN RESPECT OF ANY CLAIM OR RIGHT OR INT EREST OVER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BY THIRD PARTIES AND INDEMNIFIES THE PURCHASER IN RESPECT OF THE SAID CLAIM. THEREFORE, CONSIDERED IN THE AFORESAID PERSPECTIVE WHEN ASSESSEE RETAINS HER ABSOLUTE OWNE RSHIP RIGHTS AS PER CLAUSE 5.1 OF SALE DEED OVER THE PROPERTY AND A BSOLUTE RIGHT TO ALIENATE THE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE PURCHASER, T HE SO CALLED HANDING OVER OF POSSESSION IN FAVOUR OF SMT. NEERAJA REDDY BECOMES MEANINGLESS. FURTHERMORE, THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE TO SHOW THAT PHYSICAL POSSESSION OVER THE PROPERTY WAS ACTU ALLY HANDED OVER IN FAVOUR OF SMT. NEERAJA REDDY EXCEPT RECITALS IN THE SALE DEED. IF ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED TO SMT. NEERAJA REDDY IN 1994 IS CORRECT, THEN, THERE WAS NO NECESS ITY OF ASSESSEE MA NO. 118/HYD/14 SMT. BHAVYA ANANT UDESHI 6 TAKING RESPONSIBILITY OF INDEMNIFYING PURCHASER IN THE EVENT OF ANY FUTURE CLAIM OVER THE SAID PROPERTY. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE APPEAL ORDER HAS NOT ONLY GIVEN A F INDING THAT THERE IS NO PROOF OF PAYMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1 LAKH BY SMT. NEERAJA REDDY TO ASSESSEE BUT THE FACT THAT ASSESSE E APPLIED FOR PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A HOUSE OVER THE SAID PLOT IN 2006 ALSO PROVES THAT ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TILL IT WAS SOLD TO SHRI G. SRINIVAS REDDY IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO NOTE, THE ASSESSEE HERSELF DECLARED THE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND NOT IN ANY EARLIER ASS ESSMENT YEAR. IN THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CONTENTI ON OF ASSESSEE THAT TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED A MISTAKE BY NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THESE FACTS AND EVIDENCES WHILE CONSIDERING ASS ESSEES SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 5 0C, IN OUR VIEW, IS WITHOUT MERIT. AS CAN BE SEEN, ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT AFTER CONS IDERING ALL THE FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIB UNAL CONSCIOUSLY CAME TO A CONCLUSION IN PARA 16 OF THE ORDER THAT T HE PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED BY ASSESSEE IN THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATI ON, HENCE, UPHELD THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 50C. 7. FURTHER, IT WILL BE PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE TH AT THE ULTIMATE PURCHASER SHRI G. SRINIVASA REDDY WITH WHOM ASSESSE E EXECUTED SALE DEED ADMITTEDLY PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS. 74.20 LA KHS TO ASSESSEE. THOUGH, IT IS THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT SHE RECEIV ED THE AFORESAID AMOUNT FROM THE PURCHASER FOR PROTECTING HER AGAIN ST FUTURE INCOME- TAX LIABILITY, BUT, IN OUR VIEW SUCH CLAIM IS NOT A CCEPTABLE. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY IN FA VOUR OF SMT. NEERAJA REDDY IN THE YEAR 1994, THEN, THERE IS NO R EASON WHY THE PURCHASER SHOULD PAY A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF RS. 74 .20 LAKHS TO ASSESSEE WHILE EXECUTING THE SALE DEED. AS FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE, TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED CERTAIN EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE, SUCH AS, T RANSFER LETTER DATED 22/11/97, LETTER FILED BY SMT. NEERAJA REDDY IN 2001, IT IS TO BE MA NO. 118/HYD/14 SMT. BHAVYA ANANT UDESHI 7 OBSERVED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THESE EVIDENCES WHILE RECORDING ASSESSEES ARGUMENT, WHICH IS CLEAR LY EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THESE EVIDENCES ONLY BE CAUSE THEY DO NOT FIND ANY REFERENCE IN THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUN AL. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. KARAM CHAND THAPAR AND BROS. P. LTD., 176 ITR 535 HAS HELD AS UNDER: IT IS EQUALLY SETTLED THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIB UNAL HAS NOT TO BE SCRUTINIZED SENTENCE BY SENTENCE MERELY TO FIND OUT WHETHER ALL FACTS HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN DETAIL BY THE TRIBUN AL OR WHETHER SOME INCIDENTAL FACT WHICH APPEARS ON THE RECORD HA S NOT BEEN NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS JUDGMENT. IF THE COU RT, ON A FAIR READING OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL, FINDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL AND HAS NOT TAKE N INTO ACCOUNT ANY IRRELEVANT MATERIAL IN BASING ITS CONCLUSIONS, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT LIABLE TO BE INTERFERED WITH, U NLESS, OF COURSE, THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE PERV ERSE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CON CLUSION DRAWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IS EITHER ON THE BASIS OF IRRELEVANT M ATERIALS OR NOT CONSIDERING RELEVANT MATERIAL AND IT CANNOT ALSO BE SAID THAT THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IS PERVERSE. IN F ACT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY ALLEGATION THAT TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED IRRELEVANT MATERIALS OR ITS CONCLUSION IS PERVERSE. AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A DECISION IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR OF TAXABILI TY ON CAPITAL GAIN AS WELL AS THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 50C ON OVERALL C ONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY PARTIES, THERE IS NO REASON TO ACCEPT ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL IS ERRONEOUS. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPO N BY THE ASSESSEE AND REFERRED TO IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS REGARDIN G INAPPLICABILITY OF SECTION 50 WOULD HAVE APPLIED ONLY IN THE EVENT TRA NSFER HAD TAKEN PLACE PRIOR TO 01/04/2003. SINCE ITAT HAS HELD THAT TRANSFER HAS TAKEN PLACE N THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR THE DECISIONS WILL NOT APPLY. FROM THE ISSUES RAISED IN M.A., IT IS VERY MUCH CLE AR THAT ASSESSEE IS ONLY TRYING TO REARGUE HIS CASE AND WANTS A REVIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THIS, IN OUR VIEW, IS NOT W ITHIN THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, WHICH ENVISAGES RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MA NO. 118/HYD/14 SMT. BHAVYA ANANT UDESHI 8 MERIT IN ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE TRIBUNAL IS ERRONEOUS AS IT HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER ASSESSEE S SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 50C. HOWEVER, AS FOR AS ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT GROUND NOS. 8 & 9 HAVE NOT BEEN CON SIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL, WE FIND MERIT I N THE SAME. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, IT IS CLEAR THAT TRIBUNAL HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING EITHER WAY ON THE AFORESA ID GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL TO THAT EXTENT. ACCORDINGLY, WE RECALL THE ORDER D ATED 04/04/2014 OF TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ITA NO. 2100/HYD/2011 FOR THE LI MITED PURPOSE OF DECIDING GROUND NOS. 8 & 9 RAISED BY ASSESSEE ACCOR DING TO THEIR OWN MERITS. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX ITA NO. 120 0/HYD/2011 FOR HEARING IN USUAL COURSE ONLY FOR DECIDING GROUND NO S. 8 & 9. PARTIES MAY BE INTIMATED ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT, M.A. OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY AL LOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/10/2014. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 29 TH OCTOBER, 2014. KV COPY TO:- 1) SMT. BHAVYA ANANT UDESHI, C/O M/S GANDHI & GANDHI, CAS., 1007, PAIGAH PLAZA, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 063. 2) ITO,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-I),HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD. 4) THE DIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD.