Vishnu Chithan Rajam, CHENNAI V. ITO Non Corporate Ward 2(2), CHENNAI

MA 167/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2585 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S V VENKATESHWARAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . !'# ! , $ !% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER && / M.P. NO.167/CHNY/2018 (IN I.T.A. NO.3031/CHNY/2017) ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI VISHNU CHITHAN RAJAM, NEW NO.27, OLD NO.11, SATHYA NARAYANA AVENUE, OFF BOAD CLUB ROAD, R.A. PURAM, CHENNAI - 600 028. PAN : AKCPR 3287 N V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD - 2(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. (*+' /PETITIONER) (*,+-/ RESPONDENT) *+' / 0 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI S.V. VENKATESHWARAN, C A *,+- / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT 1 / 2$ / DATE OF HEARING : 02.11.2018 3'( / 2$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.11.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 14.06.2018. 2 M.P. NO.167/CHNY/18 2. SHRI S.V. VENKATESHWARAN, THE LD. REPRESENTATIV E FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT IN PARAGRAPH 3 AT PAGE 3, THERE IS AN INADVERTENT ERROR CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUN AL. REFERRING TO LINE 7 FROM TOP AT PAGE 3, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED THAT IT SHOULD BE NOT FIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND NOT NOT FIT FOR CULTIVATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CULTIVATED THE LAND, THEREFORE, IT IS AN AGRICU LTURAL LAND, HENCE, ADMITTEDLY, THE WORD CULTIVATION SHOULD BE DELETE D AND THE WORD CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE INSERTED. 3. REFERRING TO THE OTHER ISSUE RAISED IN THE MISCE LLANEOUS PETITION, MORE PARTICULARLY REFERRING TO HIS ARGUME NT THAT THE CO- OWNER HAS NOT FILED THE ADANGAL EXTRACT BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE CO-OWNER HAS ALRE ADY FILED THE ADANGAL EXTRACT BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, TH E OBSERVATION MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT CORRECT. ON A QUERY FR OM THE BENCH WHEN THE OBSERVATION WAS MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL REGAR DING NON- PRODUCTION OF ADANGAL EXTRACT BY THE CO-OWNER AND H E ACCEPTED THE FINDING OF THIS TRIBUNAL, HOW CAN THE ASSESSEE NOW CLAIMS THAT THE CO-OWNER HAS PRODUCED THE ADANGAL EXTRACT DURING HI S ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING? THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE VERY FAIRLY SUB MITTED THAT IN THAT CASE, HE MAY LEAVE THE MATTER. 3 M.P. NO.167/CHNY/18 4. WE HEARD SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. A BARE READING OF THE ORDER O F THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 14.06.2018 SHOWS THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WAS THAT THE LAND IS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND FIT FOR CULTIVATION SINCE IT FALLS IN THE COASTAL ZONE, IT IS NOT FIT F OR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING. THEREFORE, THE MISTAKE AS POINTED OUT AT PAGE 3 OF THE ORDER, MORE PARTICULARLY AT LINE 7 FROM TOP, IS AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE CREPT IN THE ORDER, WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. A CCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS RECTIFIED. THE WORD CULTIVATION AT LINE 7 FROM TOP ON PAGE 3 IS DELETED. INSTEAD, THE WORD CONSTRUCTION IS SUBST ITUTED. AFTER RECTIFICATION, THE SENTENCE SHALL BE READ A S FOLLOWS:- THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS SITUATED ADJACENT TO THE SEASHORE AT INJAMBAKKAM, THEREFORE, IT IS ALSO NOT FIT FOR CONS TRUCTION. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS RECTIFIED ACCORDINGL Y. 5. COMING TO NON-PRODUCTION OF ADANGAL EXTRACT, THI S TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS OBSERVATION WAS MADE BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CO-OWNERS CASE AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A PARTY IN THE CO-OWNERS CASE. THE CO-OWNER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FINDING OF 4 M.P. NO.167/CHNY/18 THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO LOCUS STANDI TO DISPUTE THE FINDING RECORDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN TH E CO-OWNERS APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE OTHER CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. 6. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 14.06.2018 IS RE CTIFIED AND THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS PARTLY ALLOWED AS IND ICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 7 TH NOVEMBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( ... ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 7 TH NOVEMBER, 2018. KRI. / *26& 7&(2 /COPY TO: 1. *+' / PETITIONER 2. *,+- /RESPONDENT 3. 1 82 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 82 /CIT 5. &9 *2 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.