, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BE NCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 189/MUM/2015 (ARISING OUT OF I .TA NO. 4049/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THE ITO, 24(2)(1), MUMBAI / VS. M/S. HYDRODYNE INDUSTRIES, 62, MITTAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, UNIT-1, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-400 059 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAACJ 8850C ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI RAJGUNE M.V. / RESPONDENT BY: NONE / DATE OF HEARING :29.04.2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :29.04.2016 / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE REV ENUE REQUESTING TO RECTIFY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON BLE BENCH IN ITA NO. 4049 OF 2012 DATED 4.3.2015 AND RESTORE THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 30.3.2012. M.A.NO. 189/M/2015 2 2. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL BY ORDER DAT ED 4.3.2015 DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE VALUATI ON OF LAND TO THE DVO AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER LAW. HE SUBMITS TH AT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE NEVER RAISED T HE OBJECTION REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATI ON AS PER SEC. 50C OR DEMANDED THE VALUATION TO BE REFERRED TO THE DV O. THEREFORE, HE SUBMITS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE ITAT FOR REFERENCE TO VALUAT ION CELL IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, HE SUBMITS THAT THE LD. CIT( A)S ORDER MAY BE RESTORED BY RECTIFYING THE TRIBUNALS ORDER. 3. INSPITE OF NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE THEREFORE, WE DISPOSE OF THE M.A BY HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 4049 DATED 4.3.2015. THE HONB LE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER IN PARA-6 OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS AN A GRICULTURAL LAND AND THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET U/S. 2(14) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AC CEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF LAND BY ADOPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION U/S. 50C OF THE ACT. IT IS THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT ASSESSEE CHALLENGE D THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. C IT(A) CONFIRMED THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL TAKING NOTE M.A.NO. 189/M/2015 3 OF ALL THESE FACTS INTO CONSIDERATION DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION CELL. NOW IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECT ION IN RESPECT OF THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 50C OF THE ACT WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 254(2) OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH APRIL, 2016. [ SD/- SD/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (C.N. PRASAD ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $% /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; ( DATED : 29 TH APRIL, 2016 . % . ./ RJ , SR. PS !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ) / CIT 5. *+,%%-. , -.! , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ,/01 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, *% //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI