M/s. Lumbini Constructions Ltd, Secunderabad V. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

MA 240/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7781 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K VISHWANATHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: K C DEVADAS
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 240/HYD/2011 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 917/HYD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) M/S. LUMBINI CONSTRUCTIONS LTD., SECUNDERABAD PAN: AAACL6610J VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE -16(1) HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI K.C. DEVADAS RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K. VISHWANATHAM DATE OF HEARING: 09.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.03.2012 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA) THE ASSESSE E WANTS TO RECTIFY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 917/HYD/2011 DATED 23.9.2011 FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 2. IN ITS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE GROUND WITH REGARD TO THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS. 7,41,430 IN RESPECT OF UNDERSTATEME NT OF LAND VALUE ADMEASURING 1190 SQ. YARDS. THE TRIBUNAL GAVE A FI NDING ON THIS ISSUE IN ITS ORDER IN PARA NO. 11 WHICH IS AS FOLLO WS: '11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED T HE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THERE I S AN ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS IS SUE AS SEEN FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS NARRATED ABOV E. THE AR TRIED BEFORE US TO EXPLAIN THAT THERE IS NO UNDERSTATEMENT AS ALLEGED BY THE CIT. HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT CONVINCED ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACC OUNT WITH REFERENCE TO THE IMPUGNED ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, IN M.A. NO. 240/HYD/2011 M/S. LUMBINI CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. ======================== 2 OUR OPINION, THE CIT IS JUSTIFIED IN GIVING THE DIR ECTION TO BRING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 7,41,430/- TO TAX. THE FIND INGS OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS CONFIRMED. THIS GRO UND OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED.' 3. BEFORE US THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A PERUSAL OF PARAGRAPH 10 OF THE ORDER WOULD REVEAL T HAT THE COST OF LAND ADMEASURING 1190 SQ. YARDS WAS DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AT RS. 1,78,58,250. THE CIT IN REVISION U/ S. 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 HAD ADOPTED THE FIGURE AT RS. 1,85,99,680 WHICH INCLUDED THE REGISTRATION CHARGES OF RS. 10,1 5,000 + 11,180 + 900 + 71,630 + 870 + 100. THE REGISTRATION CHAR GES AT RS. 10,15,000 IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE FIGURE OF RS. 30 LAKHS AND THEREFORE, FURTHER RS. 10,15,000 TAKEN BY THE CIT W AS INCORRECT. THIS WAS DEMONSTRATED WITH COMPLETE DETAILS AT PAGE 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS OF RS. 6 LAKHS RE FERRED TO AT PARAGRAPH 10 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DOES NOT RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHICH IS IN QUESTION AND IS TOTALLY A DIFFERENT ITEM HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COST O F THE LAND. 4. THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL AT PARAG RAPH 11 OF ITS ORDER JUSTIFIED THE ACTION OF THE CIT IN GIV ING DIRECTION TO BRING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10,47,040 TO TAX. THIS IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTUAL FI GURES AND FACTS DEMONSTRATED AND WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BO OK. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY SUBMITTED THE COMPLETE BREAK-U P OF THE COST OF THE LAND WHICH IS REFLECTED AT PAGE 8 READ WITH PAGE 17 AND 24 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED AR SUB MITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BE RECTIFIED AS THE TRIBUNAL DEEMS FIT. 5. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE A PPARENT ON RECORD WHICH REQUIRES RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL IS NOTHING BUT SEEKING THE REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL U/S . 254(2) OF THE M.A. NO. 240/HYD/2011 M/S. LUMBINI CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. ======================== 3 INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED ALL THE RELEVAN T FACTS BUT NOT CONSIDERED ANY IRRELEVANT FACTS WHILE TAKING THE DE CISION AND TAKEN A CONSCIOUS DECISION. BEING SO, IN OUR OPINION, TH ERE MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGEMENT BUT IT CANNOT BE RECTIFIED BY WA Y OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH MARCH, 2011. SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 9 TH MARCH, 2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. LUMBINI CONSTRUCTIONS LTD., 6 - 3 - 666/A, LUMBINI TOWERS, PUNJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 16(1), HYDERABAD. 3. THE CIT - IV , HYDERABAD. 4. THE J CIT , RANGE - 16, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR A BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD TPRAO