Dr.G. Usha Gurram Reddy, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

MA 215/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1606 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARI RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: JHARNA B HARILAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M . P .NO. 2 1 5 /MDS/201 3 ( IN ITA NO. 436/MDS/2009 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 DR. G.USHA GURRAM REDDY, NO.13, HABIBULLAH ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017 [PAN: AADPR 6837 M] (PETITIONER) VS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, CHENNAI (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : MS. JHARNA B HARILAL, FCA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HARI RAO, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 24-01-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03-02-2014 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE A SSESSEE FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL DATED 20-09-2013 IN THE AFORESAID APPEAL. M.P.NO. 215/MDS/2013 :- 2 -: 2. MS. JHARNA B HARILAL, CA APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT, THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING WAS IN EXISTENCE ON THE LAND-IN-QUESTION WAS NOT CONSIDERE D BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSE SSEE OUT OF HIS OWN FUNDS AND THE PROPERTY TAX TO MADRAS CORPORATIO N AND WATER TAX TO CMWSSB WERE PAID. THIS FACT SHOWS THA T THERE WAS HUMAN HABITATION IN THE SAID PROPERTY. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI HARI RAO, APPEARING ON B EHALF OF THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L IS WELL REASONED AND DETAILED AND THERE IS NO MISTAKE AS AL LEGED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, NO INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER IS CALLED FOR. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES. THE LD.AR APPEA RING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE FACT THAT TH E BUILDING WAS IN EXISTENCE ON LAND-IN-QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN CONSI DERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE FIND THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT. IN PARA 7 & 8 OF THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED, IT M.P.NO. 215/MDS/2013 :- 3 -: HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT AN OLD BUILDIN G WHICH WAS TO BE DEMOLISHED WAS IN EXISTENCE ON THE LAND-IN-QUEST ION. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS MISCELLANEOUS P ETITION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MERELY FOR REVIEWING THE ORDER, WHICH IS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. THE LD.AR HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY MISTAK EN APPARENT FROM RECORD WARRANTING RECTIFICATION. 5. THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 03 RD FEBRUARY, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIKAS AWASTHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 03 RD FEBRUARY, 2014 TNMM COPY TO: (1) PETITIONER (4) CIT(A) (2) RESPONDENT (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G.F.