The ITO, Ward-1, Eluru V. Sri Grandhi Narendra, Eluru

MA 142/VIZ/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5851 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T L PETER

Judgement Text

MA NO.142 OF 2010 GRANDHI NARENDRA ELURU PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.142/VIZAG/2010 (ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NO.29/VIZ/2005) BLOCK PERIOD 01-04-1995 TO 06-11-2001 ITO WARD-1, ELURU VS. SRI GRANDHI NARENDRA, ELURU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO:AATPN 3545 J APPELLANT BY: SHRI T.L. PETER, DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, CA ORDER PER SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BY FILING THIS PETITION THE REVENUE SEEKS RECALL O F ORDER DATED 29-04- 2010 PASSED BY THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE CITED ABOVE. 2. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE T RIBUNAL HAS NOT TAKEN NOTE OF ITS OWN DECISION PASSED IN THE CASE OF SHRI K. P RASADA RAO, SRIKAKULAM VS. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 VIS AKHAPATNAM IN IT(SS) A NO.15/V/2002, WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF EVIDE NTIARY VALUE OF STATEMENTS MADE UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. 3. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS.12.00 LA KHS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT TO WARDS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF THREE PROPERTIES. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL, WITHOUT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF ITS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHRI K. PRASADA RAO CITED A BOVE, HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.12.00 LAKHS AND THE SAME HAS RESULTED IN AN ERROR APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. ACCO RDINGLY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PRAYED FOR RECALL OF TH E IMPUGNED ORDER. MA NO.142 OF 2010 GRANDHI NARENDRA ELURU PAGE 2 OF 2 4. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SH RI K. PRASADA RAO WAS NOT CITED BEFORE THE BENCH AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND HENCE, BY FILING THE PRESENT PETITION, THE REVENUE IS SEEKING REVIEW OF THE TRIBUNALS ORD ER UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE NOTICE THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT B ROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI K.PRASADA RAO, REFERRED (SUPRA). THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AL SO THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PRESENT PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE WILL AMOUNT TO A PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE IMP UGNED ORDER, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDI NGLY, THE PRESENT PETITION OF THE REVENUE IS LIABLE TO DISMISSED AND WE ORDER ACCORDI NGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH OCTOBER, 2010. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B R BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATE: 20-10-2010 COPY TO 1 THE ITO WARD - 1, KKS TOWERS, RR PET, ELURU 2 SHRI GRANDHI NAREN DRA, MAIN BAZAR, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTT. 3 4. THE CIT RAJAHMUNDRY THE CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM