Gavva Amarender Reddy, Hyd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-2(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

MA 19/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4505 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E SUNIL BABU
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAVI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NOS. 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20/HYD/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 896, 897, 898, 899 & 900/H YD/2015) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-1 1 & 2011-12 SRI GAVVA AMARENDER REDDY, HYDERABAD [PAN: ACAPG1085F] VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAVI, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI K.E. SUNIL BABU, DR DATE OF HEARING : 01-07-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-07-2016 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE PREFERRED BY A SSESSEE ON THE COMMON ORDER DT. 17-02-2016 IN ITA NOS. 896 TO 900/HYD/2015 FOR AYS. 2007-08 TO 2011-12. FOR THE S AKE OF CLARITY, THE PETITION ITSELF IS EXTRACTED: 1. THE ABOVE APPEAL HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF BY A COMMO N ORDER DATED 17-02-2016. IN THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDE R, THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'THE PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 80-IA DOES NOT APPLY TO THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. AS ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE I NCOMES AS 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY', QUESTION OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S . 80-IA DOES NOT ARISE. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ABOVE GROUNDS RAISED HAVE BECO ME ACADEMIC. MOREOVER, M.A. NOS. 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20/HYD/2016 SRI GAVVA AMARENDER REDDY :- 2 -: AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ENQUIRY INTO THE PRESENT STATE OF AFFAIRS OF ASSESSEE ESTABLISHING A CYBER CENTRE AS 'INDUSTRIAL PARK' AN D THE EXTENT OF PROPERLY LEASED AND THE NATURE OF INCOMES EARNED WHICH MAY E FFECT IN CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. IN OUR VIEW FURTHER ENQUIRY MAY BE REQUI RED, IF THE CLAIMS ARE TO BE ALLOWED. SINCE INCOMES ARE ASSESSED UNDER THE HE AD 'INCOME FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY, THERE IS NO NEED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AO AND CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80IA AND ADJUDI CATE THE CLAIM. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE GROUNDS AS RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE CONSIDERED 'ALLOWED' FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES TO THAT EXTENT.' (UNDERLINING AND HIGHLIGHTING BY THE APPELLANT) 2. THE WORD 'NO' APPEARS TO BE OUT OF CONTEXT AND I NADVERTENT. IT IS LIKELY TO CREATE AMBIGUITY AS TO WHAT THE ORDER PUR PORTS. IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY R ECTIFY THE ABOVE APPARENT ERROR BY DELETING WORD 'NO' AS POINTED IN THE PETITION ABOVE, AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER(S) AS THE HON'BLE TRIBUNA L DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 2. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS CONTESTING THE I SSUE OF 80-IA AND IMPLIEDLY THE ISSUE OF INCOMES EARNED B Y ASSESSEE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IA. IN THAT CONTEXT, THE WORD NO USED IN THAT ORDER MAY CAUSE AMBIGUITY AND THEREFORE, REQUIRES MODIFICATION. 3. LD. DR HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER. 4. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITA T. IN FACT, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE CONTENTIONS IN 80-IA WHICH WER E EXAMINED AND ALLOWED IN THE ORDER. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS ALS O NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT QUESTIONED THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) TH AT THE INCOMES ARE FOR LETTING OUT OF THE PREMISES WHICH ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND THERE IS A FINDING BY THE CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT DOING ANY ACTIVITY WHICH JUSTIFY THE LETTING OUT TO BE CALLED AS BUSINESS. THIS WAS DIS CUSSED IN M.A. NOS. 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20/HYD/2016 SRI GAVVA AMARENDER REDDY :- 3 -: PARA 10 OF THE ORDER. THEREAFTER, ITAT FELT THAT SINCE INCOMES ARE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY , THERE IS NO NEED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AO AND CIT(A). THE W ORD NO IN THE ORDER IS CONSCIOUSLY USED AND THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THAT SO AS TO CREATE ANY AMBIGUITY. IN VIEW OF THAT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS RAI SED. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 06 TH JULY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER HYDERABAD, DATED 06 TH JULY, 2016 TNMM COPY TO : 1. SRI GAVVA AMARENDER REDDY, H.NO. 8-2-682, LAXMI, ROAD NO. 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. 2. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYD ERABAD. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-XI, HYDERABAD. 4. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.