M/s. Narayan Estate Developers, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(1), Ahmedabad

MA 221/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7591 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JANGID
• Assessee Lawyers: N C AMIN

Judgement Text

, , . .. . . .. . , . ! ' ! ' ! ' ! ' !' !' !' !' , #$ #$ #$ #$ % % % % # ## # IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : A BENCH : AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA, HONBLE V.P. & HONBLE SHR I A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M.) && && && && #' #' #' #' (M.A.) NOS.221/AHD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-200 6 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.209/AHD/2009) M/S. NARAYAN ESTATE DEVELOPERS, ABAD .... ( # / APPLICANT) PAN: AAFFM 1582P -VS- I.T.O., WARD-9(1), AHMEDABAD ( '()* / RESPONDENT) # + - # /APPLICANT BY : SHRI N.C.AMIN, A.R. '()* + - # / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.P. JANGID, D.R. '. + /0$ / DATE OF HEARING : 03/02/2012 1!2 + /0$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/02/2012 #3 #3 #3 #3 / ORDER PER SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE APPLICANT HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICA TION WITH RESPECT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 11.11.2011 I N ITA NO.209/AHD/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006. 2. THE APPLICANT, VIDE ITS M.A. DATED 28.12.2011, S TATES THAT IN PARA 7 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER, IT WAS RECORDED THAT, FROM TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHAT PLAN WAS APPROVED BY AUDA AND FURTHER, THE BRIEF PARTICULARS OF THE PLAN APPROVED BY AUDA DID 2 M.A.NO. 221-AHD-2011 NOT EMERGE FROM THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE, THEREFORE , THE CASE WAS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION. THE APPLICANT FURTHER STATES THAT THE PLAN SANCTION WAS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, DETAILED AS FOLLOWS: 1. RELEVANT PLAN APPROVAL WAS NOT PLACED BEFORE US FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. IN FACT COPY OF PLAN IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 143. 2. COPY OF B.U. PERMISSION DATED 12.4.2005 FROM AUD A OF PLOT NO. 829 IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 144. 3. COPY OF B.U. PERMISSION DATED 21.2.2005 FROM AUD A OF PLOT NO. 830 IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 152 TB 156* 4. COPY OF APPROVED PLAN OF SURVEY NO. 829 IS AVAIL ABLE ON PAGE 150. 5. COPY OF APPROVED PLAN OF SURVEY NO. 830 IS AVAIL ABLE ON PAGE 151. 6. COPY OF APPROVED REVISED LAYOUT PLAN OF SURVEY N O.829 DATED 2.8.2004 IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 158. 7. COPY OF COMPILATION LAYOUT PLAN OF SURVEY NO.8 30 IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 159. 8. COPY OF PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PLOT NO.82 9 BY AUDA DATED 2.8.2004 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED B EFORE US THAT THE PLAN SANCTION WAS VERY MUCH BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONS IDERATION AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE CASE TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE T RIBUNAL IN REMITTING BACK THE CASE FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION BY THE LD. AO IS NOT CORRECT AND THEREFORE THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BECAUSE THE MATTER COULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED ON MERIT S FROM THE VERIFICATION OF THE PLAN SANCTION PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE AFORE-SAID REASONS, THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL DATED 11.11.2011 3 M.A.NO. 221-AHD-2011 MAY BE RECALLED AND THE ISSUES MAY BE DECIDED ON ME RITS FROM THE AVAILABLE RECORDS. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY OBJECTE D TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R. AND FURTHER RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE RECORDS BEFORE US. ON FURTHER EXAMINING THE RECORDS , WE ARE NOT CONVINCED BY THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. A.R. THE LD. A.R. WAS N OT ABLE TO CLARIFY THE QUERY RAISED BY THE BENCH WITH RESPECT TO PLAN APPR OVAL BY THE AUDA IN REGARD TO ITS AUTHENTICITY, VALIDITY AND ONENESS OF THE PROJECT SINCE THERE ARE TWO PLAN SANCTIONS OF DIFFERENT DATES. THEREFORE, O UR FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2011 STAND TO BE CONFIRMED AN D THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH NEEDS T O BE RECTIFIED. FOR THE ABOVE-SAID REASONS, THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DOES NOT SURVIVE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4 #3 + 1!2 5' 6 03 / 02 /201 2 ! 7 + . 8 SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED : 03/02/2012 #3 #3 #3 #3 + ++ + '/& '/& '/& '/& 9#&2/6 9#&2/6 9#&2/6 9#&2/6- -- - 1. )* 2. '()* 3. / > 4. >- - 5. &A '/', , 8 6. D E4 #3 #, / TALUKDAR/ SR. P.S. , 8