Shri Ashwin Joshi,Hyd., V. ACIT,C-6(1).,

MA 223/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1617 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOLGY JOSE KOTTARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: K C DEVADAS
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER MISC. APLN. NO.223/HYD /2013 (IN ITA NO. 1428 /HYD/201 2 ) : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 SHRI ASHWIN JOSHI, HYDERABAD ( PAN - AGXPJ 6884 E) V/S. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 6(10, HYDERABAD (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI K.C.DEVADAS RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SOLGY JOSE KOTTARAM, DR DATE OF HEARING 8.11.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03.02.2014 O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BY THIS APPLI C ATION UNDER S.254(2) OF THE ACT, THE APPLICANT SEE - SEEKS RECTI F ICATION/RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 31.7.2013 IN ITA NO.1428/HYD/2012 OF THE R E VENUE AND ITA NO.1269/ H YD/2012 OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE GROUND THAT CERTAIN MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD HAVE CREPT INTO THE SAME. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT - ASSESSEE, REITERATING THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION, INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO ONE OF THE GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE, VIZ. TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADOPTED THE VALUE O F THE PROPERTY AS ON 1.4.81 B E FORE INDEXATION R S .1600 PER SQ. YARD FOR L A N D AGGREGATING TO R S .38,17,647 AND COST OF THE BUIL D IN G AS ON 1.4.81 BEFORE INDEXATION AT RS.2,01,1252 AND THE A GGRE G ATE INDEX ED COST OF ACQUISITION THEREON AT R S.2,31,89,416 AS ON 1.4.81. THE LEARNED COUNSEL THEN TOOK US THROUGH PARAS 19 AND 20 O F OUR ORDER DATED 31.7.2013 , AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE MISTAKE S APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING UPON THE SAID GROUND. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITT ED THAT T HE OBSERVATION MA NO9.223/HYD2013 (IN ITA NO.14 28 / HYD/2012 ) SHRI ASHWIN JOSHI, HYDERABAD 2 OF THE TRIBUNAL AT PA R A 19 THAT THE REGISTERED VALU E R WOULD BE INFLUENCED BY V E STED IN TE R E ST HAVING BEEN CHOSEN BY THE APPELLANT , IS A SUOMOTTO OBSERVATION, AND THE TRIBUNAL FAIL ED TO NOTE THAT ALL REGISTE RE D VALUERS ARE GRANTED REC OGNITION BY THE C IT/CCIT AND THEY ARE GOVERNED BY STATUTORY RULES AND REGULATION S . IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED HAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN N OT FOLLOWIN G THE SOLITARY CITED DECISION O F THE BOMBAY H IGH COURT IN THE CA S E OF C.I.T. V/S. RAMAN KUMAR SURI REPORTED IN 81 DTR 33 , WHICH CLINCHES TO THE ISSUE AS TO THE BINDIN G NATURE OF REG I STERED VALUERS REPORT ON VALUATION AS ON 1.4.1981. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL MADE R EFERENCE , ON THE OTHER HAND, TO THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY H IGH COURT IN TH E CA S E OF C.I.T. V/S. GODAVARI DEVI SARAF REPORTED IN 113 ITR 89 , THOUGH T H E SAME HAS NO T B E EN CONSI DE RED. HAVING FOUN D AS A MATTER OF FACT AT PARAGRAPH 18 OF ITS ORDER THA T THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY H IGH COURT IN RAMAN S URI S CA S E (SUPRA) AS APPLICABLE , THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN NOT GIVING ANY REASONS FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE SAME. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT FOLLOW ED THE CITED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL (HYDERABAD A BENCH ) IN THE CA S E OF ACIT V/S. SRI NARASIMHA RAO(HUF), HYDERABAD IN IT A N O .1240/H/07 , VIDE OR DER DATED 26.9.2008 , WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGES 4 TO 19 OF PAPER BOOK WHEREIN IT WAS CLEARLY H E LD AT PARAGRAPH 14 THAT NO REFERENCE TO THE V.O COULD B E MADE U/S. 55A OF TH E I.T.ACT, 1961 , G OVERNING VALUATION OF PROPERTIES FOR CAPITAL GAINS PURPOSES. RELIANCE IS PLACED IN THIS BEHALF ON THE DECISION SUPREME COU R T IN HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. VS. CIT ( 295 ITR 466 ) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT NOT FOLLO W IN G DECISION OF TH E CO - ORDINATE BENCH IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED IN THIS BEHALF THAT THE DECISION OF THE T RIBUNAL IN TH E CA S E OF NARASIMHA RAO (SUPRA) WAS REFERRED TO AND APPROVED BY THE JURISDIC T IONAL H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CITV/S. ASVEN DATLA IN ITTA NO.111 OF 2012 DATED 26.11.2012 , WHICH IMP LIES THAT THE AFORESAID DECI S ION HAS BEEN APP R O V ED BY THE A NDHRA PRADESH H IGH C OURT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL ION ITS ORDER DATED 31.7.2013 ERRED IN RELYING ON THE DECISIONS OF MUMBAI AND DELHI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, THOU GH THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN CITED BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN MA NO9.223/HYD2013 (IN ITA NO.14 28 / HYD/2012 ) SHRI ASHWIN JOSHI, HYDERABAD 3 THE CASE OF CIT V/S. TRAVANCORE TITAANIUM PRODUCTS LTD. (265 ITR 526), IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS ON TH E BINDING NATURE OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THUS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.7.2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE RECTIFIED/RECALLED. 3. THE LEA RNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMI T TED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.7.2013 AND THE PRESENT APPLCIATIONOF THE ASSEE IS LIABLE TO EB REJECTED, AS IT IS DEVOID OF MERIT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.7.2013 IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE CASE - LAW RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES. FROM THE ELABORATE AVERMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPLI CATION, AND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US ON THOSE LINES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MERELY CRITICIZING CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 31.7.2013 AND THE ACTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN NOT FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT FOLLOWING CERTAIN OTHER DECISIONS . AN OVERALL READING OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 31.7.2013 CLEARLY REFLECTS THE CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES, INCLUDING THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY TH EM. NO SPECIFIC MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH HAS CREPT INTO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WARRANTING RECTIFICATION/RECALL, HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. BY THE ELABORATE CONTENTIONS IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION, ASSESSEE IS MERELY SEEKING A RE VIEW OF OUR ORDER DATED 31.7.2013, BY CRITICIZING THE ACTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FOLLOWING OF CERTAIN DECISIONS AND NOT FOLLOWING CERTAIN OTHERS, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.254(2) OF THE ACT, THE SCOPE OF WHICH IS CONFINED TO MERE RECTIFICATION OF OBVIOUS/PATENT MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD, WHICH MIGHT HAVE CREPT INTO AN ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH MISTAKES SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION, THE SAME IS MA NO9.223/HYD2013 (IN ITA NO.14 28 / HYD/2012 ) SHRI ASHWIN JOSHI, HYDERABAD 4 LIABLE TO BE REJECTE D AS DEVOID OF MERIT. WE DO SO ACCORDINGLY AND REJECT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3.2.2014 SD/ - SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI ) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT/ - 3 RD FEBR UARY , 2014 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI ASHWIN JOSHI, D.NO.6 - 3 - 347, DWARAKAPURI COLONY, PANJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD 2 . ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 6(1) , HYDERABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) I V, HYDERABAD 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX III HYDERABAD 5 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S