Eshwarnath Constructions, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

MA 223/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5689 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: CHENNAI , ! . , ' BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER , AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 223 /MDS/20 13 (IN ITA NO.185/MDS/2012) /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S.ESHWARNATH CONSTRUCTIONS, NO.28, JAI VIGNESHBUILDINGS, PERAMBUR HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI-600 012. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE XIII, 121, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI-600 034. [PAN: AABFE 1141 M ] ( % /APPELLANT) ( &'% /RESPONDENT) % ( / APPELLANT BY : MR.N.DEVANATHAN, ADV. &'% ( /RESPONDENT BY : MR.B.SAGADEVAN, JCIT ( /DATE OF HEARING : 28.07.2017 ( /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.07.2017 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED BY THE APPELL ANT IN ITA NO.185/MDS/2012 FOR THE AY 2008-09. 2. MR.B.SAGADEVAN, JCIT, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF T HE RESPONDENT AND MR. N.DEVANATHAN, ADV., REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF TH E APPELLANT. MP NO.223/MDS/2013 (IN ITA NO.185/MDS/2012) :- 2 -: 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR THAT THE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL WAS IN RESPECT OF THE DEDUCTION U/S.80-IA OF THE ACT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE AO HAD HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80- IA(4) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A CONTRAC TOR AND NOT A DEVELOPER OF INFRASTRUCTURE. IT WAS A SUBMISSION T HAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAS NOT ADJUDICATED AS TO WHETHE R THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR OR A DEVELOPER. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THA T THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS LIABLE TO BE RECALLED. 4. IN REPLY, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ASKING FOR REVIEW OF T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS RECTIFIABLE U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PA GE NO.7 AT PARA NO. 8 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL TO SUBMIT THAT THE TRI BUNAL HAD ALREADY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SATISFY THE APPLICA BILITY CLAUSE OF THE PROVISION AS ENVISAGED U/S.80-IA(4) OF THE ACT. I T WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS RI GHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD.DR, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA NO.8 OF ITS ORD ER. NO SPECIFIC ERROR IN RESPECT OF THE FINDINGS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LD.AR. THIS BEING SO, MP NO.223/MDS/2013 (IN ITA NO.185/MDS/2012) :- 3 -: AS THERE IS NO ERROR MUCH LESS APPARENT FROM THE RE CORD IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFE RE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JULY 28, 201 7, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0 /DATED: JULY 28, 2017. TLN ( &23 43 /COPY TO: 1. % /APPELLANT 4. 5 /CIT 2. &'% /RESPONDENT 5. 3 & /DR 3. 5 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF