M/s. Dhanamani Hall, Madurai V. ITO, Madurai

MA 155/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1072 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NOS. 155 TO 157/MDS/2013 ( IN ITA NOS.154 TO 156/MDS/2012) (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2004-05) M/S. DHANAMANI HALL, 19/6B, GST ROAD, MOOLAKARAI, THIRUPARANKUNDRAM, MADURAI-625 005. PAN: AADFD3280E (APPLICANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(1), MADURAI (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : MR. S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : MR. N.MADHAVAN, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 8 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ARE FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2004-05 RESPECT IVELY. IN ALL THESE THREE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS, THE ASSESS EE STATED AS UNDER:- WHILE IMPLEMENTING THE ORDER OF THE BENCH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS SEPARATE ORDER DATED 14.6.2013 HAD NOT GRANTED REDUCTION IN VALUE AT 15% FOR ADOPTING CPWD RATES INSTEAD OF STATE PWD RATES AND WHILE HOLDING SO, THE ASSESSING M.P. NOS.155 TO 157/MDS/2013 2 OFFICER HAD INTERPRETED THE SECOND REPORT FURNISHED BY THE DVO AS THE ONE INCORPORATING SUCH REDUCTION FOR RATE DIFFERENCE. THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD IS NOT CORRECT AND THE BENCH WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEALS HAD CATEGORICALLY DIRECTED HIM TO GRANT 15% REDUCTION FOR RATE DIFFERENCE FROM ` 1,29,99,000/- APART FROM FURTHER REDUCTION OF 15% FOR SELF-SUPERVISION WHICH REDUCTION WAS GRANTED IN THE EFFECT GIVING ORDERS PASSED BY HIM. THE PETITIONER PLEADS AND PRAYS FOR PASSING APPROPRIATE ORDER IN CLARIFYING THE ABOVE POSITION INASMUCH AS THE REDUCTION IN THE RATE DIFFERENCE OF 15% FROM THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DETERMINED BY THE DVO IN THE SECOND/REVISED REPORT AT ` 1,29,99,000/- MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE GIVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING EFFECT TO THE COMMON ORDER OF THE BENCH CORRECTLY AND THUS RENDER JUSTICE. 2. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DID NOT GRANT REDUCTION IN VALUE AT 15% FOR ADOPTING CPWD RATES INSTEAD OF STATE PWD RATES. HE FURTHER S UBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FINALLY ARRIVING A T THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION TO BE DETERMINED ON THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL M.P. NOS.155 TO 157/MDS/2013 3 DID NOT CONSIDER THE DVOS REVISED REPORT WHERE C OST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS DETERMINED AT ` 1,29,99,000/- 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT THE RE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS. 4. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED THE MISCELLANEOUS PETI TIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THI S TRIBUNAL. THE ONLY PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN THESE MISCELLANEOU S PETITIONS IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CAR RIED OUT THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL AS DIRECTED IN PARA 7 O F ITS ORDER. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT POINT OUT AN Y MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD FROM THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS TRIBUNAL HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW 15% REDUCTION TOWARD S DIFFERENCE IN RATES ADOPTED BY THE DVO AND 15% TOWA RDS SELF- SUPERVISION. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNA L IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW REDUCTION TOWARDS DIFFERENCE IN RATES AND SELF-SUPERVISION. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, M.P. NOS.155 TO 157/MDS/2013 4 WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER MUCH LESS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE MISCELLANEOUS PETIT IONS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THURSDAY, THE 14 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (CHALLA NAGEN DRA PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 14 TH NOVEMBER, 2013. SOMU COPY TO: (1) APPLICANT (4) CIT (A) (2) RESPONDENT (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G.F.