C.Satheesh Kumar, Aranthangi V. ACIT, Trichy

MA 152/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2494 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURU BHASHYAMJCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! , ' # $ BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P.NO. 152/MDS/2014 ./IN I.T.A.NO.166/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010. SHRI. C. SATHEESH KUMAR, 155, PUDUKKOTTAI ROAD, ARANTHANGI 614 616. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE III, TRICHY. [PAN:- AKZPS 1557K] ( PETITIONER ) (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI. D. ANAND, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. GURU BHASHYAM, JCIT. & ' ( ) *+ / DATE OF HEARING : 10.10.2014 ,- ( )*+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.11.2014 #% / O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 04.09.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO. 166/MDS/2014. M.P.NO.152/MDS/2014 IN ITA NO.166/MDS/2014. :- 2 -: 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED APPEAL IMPUGNING THE ORDER O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TIRUCHIRAPALL I, DATED 05.09.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. AFTER C ONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH PAR TIES AT LENGTH, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMI SSED BEING DEVOID OF MERIT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE/PETITIONER SUB MITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL FOLLOWI NG SUBMISSIONS MADE WERE NOT CONSIDERED WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APP EAL: A) SINCE THE HUF DID NOT HAVE PAN NUMBER ALLOTTED AND SINCE PAN NUMBER WAS REQUIRED TO REGISTER IMMOVABLE PROPERTY THE SAID PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF COPARCENER OF HUF BY SHOWING THE INDIVIDUAL PAN NO. B) SINCE THE HUF DID NOT HAVE PAN NUMBER, THE HUF COUL D NOT OPEN A BANK ACCOUNT. BANK ACCOUNT AS OPENED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER AND THE SAME WAS USED TO PARK THE FUNDS OF THE HUF. C) THE PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE COPA RCENERS NAMELY THE PETITIONS AND HIS WIFE MRS.S. KAYALVIZHI . MRS. S. KAYALVIZHI IS ASSESSED TO TAX ON THE FILE OF ITO(1), PUDUKKOTA I VIDE PAN NO.ASXPK1497 AND THE ASSESSMENT IN HER CASE WAS SUB JECTED TO SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 05.12.2011. THE OBSERVATI ON OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SAID ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS AS REGARDS THE TRANSACTION IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY MENTIONED IN THE AIR, THE ASSESS EES REPRESENTATIVE, IN HIS LETTER DATED 27.11.2011 FILED ON 02.12.2011 HAS STATED THAT THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE ALO NG WITH HER HUSBAND OUT OF FUNDS OF THE HUF, ASSESSED IN PAN AADHC0380 A IN THE OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE II(4), CHENNAI AND THE SAME WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE HUF FOR TH E A.Y. 2009-10 FILED ON 30.06.2009 VIDE ACK NO.240394. HENCE, THE SAID TRANSACTION WITH REGARD TO THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS NOT CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. D) THE RETURN IN THE STATUS OF HUF REFLECTING THE ABOV E TRANSACTION M.P.NO.152/MDS/2014 IN ITA NO.166/MDS/2014. :- 3 -: WAS FILED AS EARLY AS 30.06.2009 WHILE THE PETITION ERS RETURN WAS FILED ON 31.07.2009. E) THE HUF WAS ALLOTTED PAN NO ONLY ON 18.03.2009 WHIL E THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED ON 15.09.2008 WHILE NECESSIT ATED THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE COPARCENERS NAME BY SHOWING THE INDIVIDUAL PAN NO. F) THE BANK ACCOUNT UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY WAS NEVER PART OF THE INDIVIDUAL RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER SI NCE THE SAME WAS UTILIZED TO PARK THE FUNDS OF THE HUF. G) THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED ONLY IN HU F ACCOUNT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL IS WELL REASONED AND HAS BEEN PASSED AFTER CONSIDER ING ALL THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE/PETITIONER. 4. BOTH SIDES HEARD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE IN MISCELLANEOUS PETITION HAS REITERATED THE GROUNDS W HICH HAD ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED UPON IN APPEAL. TH E MAIN GROUSE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT HUF WAS IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF PROPERT Y. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSERTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NOTHI NG ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT HUF HAD COME INTO EXISTENCE ON THE DATE O F PURCHASE OF ASSET. IN PARA NO. 6 OF THE ORDER, REASONS ARE GIV EN FOR REJECTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. M.P.NO.152/MDS/2014 IN ITA NO.166/MDS/2014. :- 4 -: ANOTHER PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IN CASE OF SM T. S. KAYALVIZHI WIFE OF ASSESSEE, WHO IS ALSO A COPARCE NER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN PUR CHASED FROM THE FUNDS OF HUF. SINCE, THERE IS NO APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF SMT. S. KAYALVIZHI, WE REFRAIN OURSELVES TO MAKE AN Y OBSERVATION ON THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETIT ION FOR RECTIFICATION IS NOTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT TO SEEK REV IEW OF ORDER WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE/PETITIONER IN THE MI SCELLANEOUS PETITION. 6. IN RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF THE ASSE SSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 17TH OF NOVEMBER, 2 014, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) / VICE PRESIDENT ( ! ) (VIKAS AWASTHY) ' # / JUDICIAL MEMBER ./0' /CHENNAI 12 /DATED:17.11.2014. K.V 2/3 ( 4)56 7/6 ) /COPY TO: 1. PETITIONER 2. 489: / RESPONDENT 3. & ;) ( )/CIT(A) 4. & ;) /CIT 5. 6<= 4)> /DR 6. =? @' /GF.