IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO.172/HYD/2014 IN MA.NO.118/HYD/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.2100/HYD/2011 - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 BHAVYA ANANT UDESHI HYDERABAD PAN AALPU3857A VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-I HYDERABAD (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. AJAY GANDHI FOR REVENUE : MR. RAMAKRISHNA BANDI DATE OF HEARING : 30.01.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.02.2015 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, ASSESSEE SEEKS RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN CREP T INTO THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2014 PASSED IN M.A.NO.118/HYD/201 4. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE NEED TO OBSE RVE AS PER SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THE SECOND MISCELLANEOUS AP PLICATION, THAT TOO ON THE VERY SAME ISSUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE , HENCE, DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED AT THE THRESHOLD. EVEN ON MERITS ALSO AS CAN BE SEEN, ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE ULTIM ATE SALE DEED IS AN OUTCOME OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE ENTERED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. NEERAJA REDDY IN 1994. THEREF ORE, AS THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY HAS TAKEN PLACE IN PURSUAN CE TO AN 2 M.A.NO.172/HYD/2014 IN MA.NO.118/HYD/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.2100/HYD/2011 SMT. BHAVYA ANANT UDESHI, HYDERABAD. AGREEMENT EXECUTED PRIOR TO INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 50C TO THE STATUTE, SUCH PROVISION WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE AS P ER THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, TRIBU NAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN OUR VIEW, THIS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSE E IS NOT AT ALL ACCEPTABLE. AS CAN BE SEEN THE SO-CALLED AGREEM ENT OF SALE (TERMED AS SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY) WAS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. NEERAJA REDDY WHEREAS, SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRING THE PROPERTY WAS BETWE EN THE ASSESSEE AND ONE SRI G. SRINIVAS REDDY EXECUTED ON 23.10.2007 ON RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.7 4.20 LAKHS. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SALE DEED WAS AN OUTCOME OF THE SO-CALLED AGREEMENT OF SALE BETWEEN THE ASSE SSEE AND SMT. NEERAJA REDDY. MOREOVER, ALL THESE ARGUMENTS W ERE ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY AT THE TIME OF HE ARING OF THE APPEAL BUT ALSO DURING HEARING OF THE FIRST MISCELL ANEOUS APPLICATION. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED NOT ONLY T HE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ALL OTHER FACTORS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD WHILE COMING TO ITS CONCLUSION AT THE TIM E OF DISPOSAL OF APPEAL AS WELL AS THE FIRST MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION IN M.A.NO.118/HYD/2014. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESEN T M.A. IS NOTHING BUT REPETITION OF THE SAME ISSUE WHICH WERE CONSIDERED EARLIER BY THE TRIBUNAL. CONSIDERED IN AFORESAID PE RSPECTIVE, THE PRESENT M.A. IS NOTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT BY THE A SSESSEE TO SEEK A REVIEW OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL . THAT BEING THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE PRESENT M .A. WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 3. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 3 M.A.NO.172/HYD/2014 IN MA.NO.118/HYD/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.2100/HYD/2011 SMT. BHAVYA ANANT UDESHI, HYDERABAD. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.02.2015. SD/- SD/- (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 04 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 VBP/- COPY TO 1. SMT. BHAVYA ANANT UDESHI, HYDERABAD C/O. GANDHI & GANDHI, C.AS., 1002, PAIGAH PLAZA, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 063. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDE RABAD. 3. CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD 4. DIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT A BENCH, HYDERABAD.