The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam, V. Sri Tangi Hari, Visakhapatnam

MA 22/VIZ/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8402 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T L PETER
• Assessee Lawyers: I KAMA SASTRI

Judgement Text

MP NO.22/VIZAG/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.362 TO 368 & 373 TO 375/VIZ AG/2010) SHRI TANGI HARI, VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MP NO.22/VIZAG/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS 362 TO 368 & 373 TO 375/VIZ AG/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000 - 01 TO 2006 - 07 & 2004 - 05 TO 2006 - 07 DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM. VS. SHRI TANGI HARI, VISAKHAPATNAM. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO: ABJPT5607J APPELLANT BY: SHRI TL PETER, CIT - DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI I KAMA SASTRI, CA DATE OF HEARING: 12.04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13 .04.2012 ORDER PER SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON WITH THE PLEA THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE OBSERVATION MADE BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 22.2 OF THE ORDER REFERRED (SUPRA) AND ACCORDINGLY REQUE STED TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE. 2. IN PARA 22.2 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER, IT IS OBSE RVED AS UNDER:- WHILE DEALING WITH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON T HE ISSUE IN THE PARAGRAPH 19 (SUPRA), WE HAVE UPHELD THE VIEW OF TH E LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF ESTIMATION O F INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AS THE PROJECT WAS AT ITS I NITIAL YEARS IN THAT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF LEARN ED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. NOW IT IS POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE THAT THE TRIBU NAL HAS NOT MADE ANY SUCH OBSERVATION IN PARAGRAPH 19. 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REVENUE AND NOTICE THAT THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT MAKE ANY OBSER VATION IN PARA 19 AS MP NO.22/VIZAG/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.362 TO 368 & 373 TO 375/VIZ AG/2010) SHRI TANGI HARI, VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 2 OF 2 MENTIONED IN PARA 22.2. ACCORDINGLY, AS SUBMITTED BY THE REVENUE, THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN PARA 22.2 NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIE D. ACCORDINGLY, THE PARAGRAPH 22.2 IS SUBSTITUTED WITH THE FOLLOWING PA RAGRAPH:- 22.2 IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS INCLUDED THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE SITE OWNERS TOWARDS THE COS T OF SITE FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. IF WE EXCLUDE THE SAID PAYMENT, THE PERCENTAGE OF C OMPLETION ACTUALLY WORKS OUT TO ONLY ABOUT 17%. IN CONSTRUCT ION AGREEMENTS, IN OUR VIEW, THE PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE AMOUNT SPENT ON CONSTRUCTION ACTIV ITY. SINCE THE PROJECT IN THE YEAR RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-06 WAS IN ITS INITIAL PERIODS, WE AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF ESTIMATION OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 FROM THIS PROJECT. ACCORDI NGLY, WE UPHOLD HIS DECISION. 4. THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS ALLOWED ACCORDINGL Y. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.04.2012. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B R BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VISAKHAPATNAM, DATE: 13 TH APRIL, 2012 COPY TO 1 THE ASSTT CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, VI SAKHAPATNAM. 2 SHRI TANGI HARI, 9 - 13 - 93, NEW RESAPUVANIPALEM, CBM COMPOUND, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 003. 3 4. THE CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD. THE CIT(A), VISAKHAPATNAM. 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM